ail 


DAVID   NEUMARK 


NOV  16  191B 


BM    170     .N4 

Neumark,  David,  1866-1924. 

The  philosophy  of  the  Bible 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

DAVID  NEUMARK 


THE  PHILOSOPHY-" 


OF  THE 


BIBLE 


BY 

David  Neumark 
Professor  of  Jewish  Philosophy 

HEBREW  UNION  COLLEGE 

CINCINNATI 


CINCINNATI 

ARK  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 
1918 


Copyright,  1918 

BY 

ARK  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 


PREFACE. 

THIS  book  attempts  the  first  scientific  and  popular 
presentation  of  the  history  of  thought  in  biblical 
Judaism.  The  views  laid  down  in  this  book  are 
based  on  a  minute  study  of  the  literatures  concerned, 
biblical,  Graeco-Jewish,  and  talmudic.  For  the 
arguments  on  which  these  views  are  based,  the 
student  is  referred  to  my  previous  publications  on 
the  subject.*  Nevertheless  the  presentation  is  so 
arranged  that,  from  the  references  given,  the  reader 
will  always  be  able  to  verify  my  statements  from  the 
text  of  the  Bible.  Notably  I  have  made  it  a  point 
to  give  all  the  references  necessary  to  an  independent 
verification  of  my  statements  in  cases  where  I  had  to 
treat  of  subjects  as  yet  not  fully  discussed  in  my 
previous  publications. 

This  Preface  is  written  on  the  tenth  anniversary  of 
my  first  sessions  at  the  Hebrew  Union  College.  The 
plan  of  this  book  is  based  on  the  experience  acquired 
in  actual  teaching,  ''The  Philosophy  of  the  Bible,"  re- 
presenting a  part  of  the  ground  covered  in  the  lecture- 


*(1)     Geschicht  der  juedischen  Philosophic  des  Mittelalters  vol. 
I,  George  Reimer,  Berlin  1907/11,  1,  1910. 

(2)  Jehuda  Hallevi's  philosophy,  Hebrew  Union  College  Cat- 
alog, 1908. 

(3)  Crescas  and  Spinoza,  Year  Book  of  Central  Conference 
of  American  Rabbis,  1909. 

(4)  Tholdoth  ha-'Ikkarim  be-Yisroel,  vol.  I,  Moriyah, Odessa 
1912;  for  the  second  volume  cf.  the 

(5)  Outline  in  the  article" 'Ikkarim"  in  the  Sample- Volume 
of  the  Hebrew  Encyclopedia  "Otsar  ha-Yahduth,"  War- 
saw 1906. 

(6)  Essays  and  articles  in  periodicals  and  occasional  pub- 
lications. 


iv  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

course  on  Jewish  Philosophy  in  the  Collegiate  Depart- 
ment. My  German  book,  "History  of  Jewish  Philoso- 
phy" is  arranged  according  to  Problems.  This  book 
presents  the  subject  chronologically.  Smaller  literary 
units,  however,  are  treated  jointly,  as  set  forth  in 
the  course  of  the  presentation  on  apt  occasions. 

I  hope  the  book  will  be  of  help  to  readers,  students 
and  teachers  of  the  Bible. 

A  Table  of  the  Sources  of  the  Torah,  an  elaborate 
Table  of  Contents,  an  exhaustive  Index,  and  complete 
Bible  References  in  the  Massoretic  order,  greatly 
facilitate  the  use  of  the  book  to  students,  teachers  and 
preachers. 

David   Neumark. 
Cincinnati,  Ohio,  December  4,  1917. 


CONTENTS 

PREFACE iii-rv 

INTRODUCTION xiii-xlii 

1.  Scope  of  the  Book xiii-xv 

Four  periods,  each  concluding  with  a  decisive  phase 

in  the  History  of  the  Torah.  Identity  of  prophetic 
and  authoritative  Judaism,  and  continuity  from 
biblical  to  post-biblical  Judaism  (III-XV). 

2.  Biblical  Criticism xv-xxxiii 

Orthodox  view  of  the  Torah  and  the  authorship  of 

other  biblical  books.  Isaiah  XL  ff.  (XV-XVII).— 
Traditional-critical  view.  Beginnings  of  criticism, 
Abraham  Ibn  Exra  (XVII-XVIII).— First  modern 
critic,  Baruch  Spinoza,  Christian  Scholars,  Zunz, 
Geiger,  Graf -Wellhausen- Hypothesis  (XVIII- 
XXIV). — Reaction  of  the  Jews;  orthodox:  Barth, 
Hoffmann,  Jampel;  liberal:  Geiger,  Samuel  Hirsch, 
Graetz,  Jacob,  History  of  Dogmas  in  Judaism, 
History  of  Jewish  Philosophy,  Schechter:  Higher 
Criticism— Higher  Antisemitism  (XXIV-XXVIII). 
— Biblical  Criticism  in  School  and  Pulpit;  Orthodox 
(XXVIII-XXIX);  Reform  (XXX-XXXIII). 

3.  The  Sources  of  the  Torah  (Table) XXXLV-XLII 

FIRST  CHAPTER:     Pre-Sinaitic  Period 1-16 

Historical  truth  and  literary  motif.  Babylonian 
influence  (1-2). — Monotheism  and  the  sexual  motive 
in  Divinity  (2-4). — Sexual  motif  in  biblical  litera- 
ture (4-6). — Differentiation  of  the  ethical  God-con- 
ception from  the  cosmological  (6-7). — Motif  of 
Attributes.  Divine  attributes  and  names,  names 
of  angels  (7-9). — Speculative  element  in  Babylonian 
and  early  biblical  God-conceptions.  The  social 
aspect  of  divine  Justice,  Fatum  (9-11). — Prophecy 
and  free  will,  personality  and  responsibility  in 
general  Semitic  theology  (11-12). — Divine  Mercy 
in  Semitic  theology.  The  rivalry  between  the  God- 
conceptions  of  rigid  justice  and  mercy  in  Israel:  El 
Kanna,  Elohim,  EHJH,  JHVH  (12-14).— The 
national  Name  of  God  (14-15). — The  practical  pos- 
tulates of  the  new  God-conception.  The  Covenant 
at  Sinai  (15-16). 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


SECOND  CHAPTER:    From  Sinai  to  Deuteronomy     17-95 

Introduction 1 7-20 

The  influence  of  the  autochtonic  tribes  upon  the 
Abrahamites  in  Palestine.  Relation  between  North 
and  South.  The  golden  Calf.  Conflicting  Tradi- 
tions. Deuteronomic  Covenant  made  possible  by 
the  fall  of  Israel  (17-19). — Controversy  about 
angels,  center  of  spiritual  development,  concluded 
with  Deuteronomic  Reformation  (19-20). 

1.  The  Conception  of  Early  History 21-26 

Different  degrees  of  purification  in  the  monotheistic 
redaction  of  national  traditions  in  different  parts  of 

the  Bible  (21-22). — The  revised  conception  of  early 
history  in  Deuteronomy  (22-24). — Increased  zest 
for  Ishtar-cult  cause  of  radical  step  (24-26). 

2.  God-Conception  and  Divine  Names 26-42 

Motif  of  Attributes  as  used  by  historians  and 
prophets.  The  Development  of  the  God-conception 
according  to  E  (26-29). — God-conception  in  J. 
Differences  between  E  and  J.  Elohim  as  proper 
Name  abandoned  since  the  days  of  J  (29-32). — 
Amos  and  Hosea  later  than  E  and  J.  Amos  intro- 
duces the  temporary  divine  name  JHVH  Elohei- 
Zebaoth  (32-34). — Hosea,  the  prophet  of  Mercy, 
opposed  to  Elohei-Zebaoth  and  to  angels,  the  first 
definition  of  God  in  contrast  to  the  human.  Attri- 
butes of  Might,  Eternity,  Wisdom  (34-36).— Isaiah 
believes  in  angels  in  the  beginning,  looks  forward 

to  a  united  Israel,  signifies  the  zenith  of  pre-Jeremian 
Judaism.  "Holy  one  of  Israel",  JHVH  Zebaoth. 
Declines  angels  as  mediators  between  God  and 
Israel.  Opposition  to  attributes  of  mercy,  especi- 
ally "long-suffering."  "Attributes  of  Evil."  Epi- 
grammatic formulas.  Shalom.  Metaphysical  God 
definition.  Spirit-Flesh.  Elilim  (36-40). — Deuter- 
onomy never  uses  Elohim  as  proper  name.  Opposed 
to  "long-suffering."  "Hear,  O  Israel",  the  formula 
of  unity.     Arithmetical  and  dynamic  unity  (40-42). 

3.  The  Other  Essential  Principles 42-60 

The  essential  principles  of  religion  in  paganism  and 
pre-Deuteronomic  Judaism   (42-44). — Development 

of  prophecy  in  pre-Deuteronomic  times  (44-46). — 
Prophecy  in  Deuteronomy  (46-48). — Free  will  in 
pre-Deuteronomic  sources  and  in  Deuteronomy 
(48-49). — Semitic  and  Egyptian  eschatology.  The 
question  of  Soul  and  Sheol  in  pre-Deuteronomic 
literature.     Isaiah    opposes    the  "Egyptian  Spirit" 


CONTENTS 


(49-53). — Individual  and  national  retribution  in  pre- 
Deuteronomic  literature  (53-57).— Individual,  na- 
tional and  universal  retribution  in  Deuteronomy 
efficient  without  the  eschatological  aspect.  The 
systematic  presentation  of  theoretical  principles 
and  practical  laws  in  Deuteronomy. 

4.  The  Religious-Cultural  Life 61-95 

Pagan  influences  and  prophetic  postulates.  Prophets 
and  the  Law  (60-62).— Backslidings  into  paganism 
due  to  half-heartedness  of  authoritative  monothe- 
istic Doctrines:  Cherubs,  Seraph  of  Moses,  'Agahm. 
Difference  between  Cherubs  and  'Agalim,  difference 
of  calendar,  religious-political  difference  between 
North  and  South  (63-68).— Hezekiah's  Reform. 
Deuteronomic  Reform.  Removal  of  Ark  with 
Cherubs  and  all  relics  (68-71).— The  withdrawal  of 
the  first,  and  the  introduction  of  the  second,  Book 
of  the  Covenant  (71-76).— Architecture  and  decora- 
tive arts,  music,  song,  and  dance  (76-79). — Pre- 
Deuteronomic  literature  chiefly  historical.  Very 
little  secular  literature.  Deuteronomy  explains 
principles  by  historic  arguments  (79-83). — The 
principle  of  free  will  as  expressed  in  Deuteronomic 
laws.  Greater  independence  of  judges.  Against 
jus  talionis.  Tendency  against  capital  punishment 
(83-87).— Attitude  of  the  prophets  to  sacrifices. 
The  Sin-Off ering  (87-90).— Universalism  of  Amos, 
particularism  of  Hosea.  Isaiah's  messianic  ideal 
(90-95). 
THIRD  CHAPTER:    From  Deuteronomy  to  Ezra. .  97-217 

Introduction .•  97-100 

General  characterization  of  post-Deuteronomic 
period  (97-100). 

1.  Jeremiah ' .........  .100-114 

Cosmological  God-conception,  monotheistic  theory 
of  creation.  Opposition  to  Thirteen  (100-103).— 
Conception  of  prophecy,  oscillations  in  question  of 
free  will.  Individual  soul  and  eschatological  hope 
(103-106).— Jeremiah  hostile  to  art,  introduces  argu- 
ment from  Nature,  concept  of  natural  law  (106-108). 
—Influence  upon  legislation.  Attitude  to  Sabbath, 
circumcision,  sacrifices,  especially  sin-offerings  (108- 
112).— Idea  of  Mission:  Confession  of  Faith.  Re- 
union of  Juda  and  Israel  (112-114). 

2    Ezekiel 115— lj 7 

Ezekiel  organizes  the  opposition  against  the  Deuter- 
onomic Covenant,  re-emphasizes  the  belief  in  angels 


viii  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


and  develops  theory  of  Mercabah.  More  interest 
in  early  history.  Return  to  ethical  God-idea  of 
holiness.  Cosmogonic  interest.  Motif  of  attri- 
butes (115-118).— Ways  of  JHVH  central  problem, 
Adonay,  El  Shadday,  Adonay  JHVH,  Cabhod, 
Cloud,  Cherubs:  Presence  of  JHVH,  Mercabah  in 
restored  Temple.  Ethical  God-conception  with  a 
cosmological  touch  (118-121). — Reaction  in  means 
of  revelation,  and  progress  in  conception  of  prophet's 
calling.  Ruah  (Spirit)  in  contrast  to  flesh.  Difficul- 
ties in  question  of  free  will  (121-124). — Discussion 
and  solution  of  the  problem  of  justice.  Emphasis 
laid  on  individual  responsibility  and  repentance. 
Eschatological  elements:  Ruah,  Sheol,  Bor  (124- 
129). — Artistic  postulates  in  worship,  music  (129- 
131). — Influence  upon  the  development  of  literature 
131-132). — Influence  on  legislation:  Sabbath,  cir- 
cumcision, capital  punishment,  sin-offering  (132- 
134). — Weakening  of  universalistic-messianic  hopes. 
Conception  of  History.  Reunion  of  Israel  and 
Juda  (134-137). 

Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel:    Two  Schools 137-217 

Introduction-  (general  characterization  of  the  two 
schools) 137-140 

a.  Deutero-Isaiah 140-142 

This   prophet   belongs  to  the  Jeremian   School. 

His  fight  against  Persian  Dualism  (140).  Cosmo- 
logical  Proof,  Israel's  Selection,  Metaphysical  con- 
ceptions, Thirteen  Attributes  (141-142). 

b.  The  Book  of  Job  (Ruth  and  Esther) 142-181 

General  plan  of  the  book  of  Job.  Use  of  divine 
names  (142-144). — The  general  argument  in 
Defense  of  Justice.  The  special  arguments  of 
Eliphaz,  Bildad,  Zophar,  and  Elihu  (144-148).— 

Job  meant  to  represent  the  oscillating  currents  of 
his  age,  affecting  all  principles  of  Judaism  (148- 
151). — Job's  wavering  attitude  in  eschatological 
questions  (151-154). — Cosmogonical  elements  in 
the  discussion  of  creation.  The  Cosmological 
Proof  in  the  Revelation  in  Storm  (154-157). — Free 
will,  Fatum,  Determinism.  Reaction  in  concep- 
tion of  medium  of  prohpetic  revelation,  progress 
in  conception  of  function  of  prophecy,  speculative 
prophecy  (157-160). — Cultural  life,  music,  plastics. 
Date  and  literary  development  of  the  book  of  Job 
(160-162). — Development  of  literary  composition 
in  Hebrew  Literature.  Job  a  problem-drama. 
Other    problem-dramas:    Jonah,    Ruth,    Song   of 


CONTENTS  ix 


Songs.  International  aspect  of  the  Problem  of 
Justice  in  Job  (162-169).— The  book  of  Ruth,  its 
literary  motifs  and  its  problems:  Israel  and  the 
nations,  proselytism>  intermarriage,  historic  jus- 
tice, Love  and  Law  (169-173).— The  book  of 
Esther,  its  literary  motifs  and  its  problems,  as 
compared  with  the  book  of  Ruth,  its  purely 
religious  separatism,  and  its  permanent  Diaspora- 
program  (173-176). — The  attitudes  of  other  con- 
temporary prophets  and  writers  in  those  problems 
(176-181). 

The  Book  of  Jonah 181-186 

The  book  of  Jonah  written  in  defence  of  the  God- 
conception  and  theory  of  retribution  of  the 
Thirteen,  against  the  opponents  represented  by  the 
prophet  Jonah  (181-186). 

.  Priestly  Code 186-200 

Monotheistic  theory  of  Creation,  God-conception, 
human  Soul,  conception  of  prophecy,  opposed  to 
angels,  man's  free  will,  extreme  representative  of 
Jeremian  School,  embodies  some  elements  from 
Ezekiel  (186-189).— Conception  of  history:  World 
created  by  Elohim,  Flood,  Covenant  with  Noah, 
Rainbow  in  Cloud:  sign  of  Mercy  to  "perfectly 
just"  (189-190).— Short  outline  of  History,  Cove- 
nant with  Abraham,  new  Name:  El-Shadday, 
new  sign,  name  JHVH  revealed  to  Moses,  Cabhod 
visible  to  Congregation,  the  Tabernacle:  the 
finishing  touch  of  creation,  abandonment  of 
formula  of  attributes  (Thirteen),  replacing  it  by 
new  iormula,  Priestly  Blessing  (190-195).— 
National  responsibility  restricted,  Magguepha, 
Khareth  for  deliberate,  guilt-offering  for  un- 
knowingly committed  sins,  abolition  of  capital 
punishment  (195-198).— Leaning  toward  decora- 
tive art  in  worship,  Khareth  for  ritual  crimes  and 
incest.  Against  intermarriage.  Babylonian  theory 
of  ideas.  (198-200). 

.  The  Book  of  Holiness .200-209 

Original  BH  consisted  of  Law  Code  and  Admoni- 
tion with  historic  introduction  taken  from  EJ 
and  J2.  JHVH-Elohim,  First  Sin,  Sign  of  Cain, 
Cherubs  of  Paradise  and  Tabernacle  (200-203).— 
God-conception:  pre-Deuteronomic,  Holiness, 
Controversy  about  basis  of  Law.  Prophecy,  free 
will,  retribution  and  immortality,  particularly  as 
conceived  in  the  Paradise  story.  Arts,  origin  of 
Civilization  (203-209). 


THE  PHILSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


/.  The  Compromise 209-217 

The  Two  Schools  enter  a  Compromise,  the  Jere- 
mian  School  prevailing  in  questions  of  principle, 
the  Ezekielian  in  practical  questions  (209-212). — 
Controversy  and  Compromise  as  to  the  postulate 
of  abolition  of  capital  punishment  by  judicial 
execution,  replacing  it  by  Khareth  (212-214). — 
The  development  of  Oral  Tradition  as  a  comse- 
quence  of  the  compromise  (213-216) — Deuter- 
onomy a  part  of  the  new  "Torah"  (216-217). 

FOURTH  CHAPTER:    The  Post-Esranic  Period.  .  .219-301 

Introduction 219-222 

The  late  biblical  period  is  characterized  by  three 
distinct  lines  of  development:     Biblical,  Sopheric- 
Talmudic,     and     Alexandrian,     or     Graeco-Jewish 
(219-222), 

1.  The  Final  Redaction  of  the  Torah 222-229 

Events  and  currents  which  strengthen  the  conserva- 
tives in  their  demand  for  a  new  redaction  of  the 
national  authoritative  document.  The  new  Com- 
promise (222-226). — The  appearance  of  the  Greek 
influence.  Influence  of  Plato  also  negative,  his 
positive  influence  analyzed  into  three  features: 
defense  of  justice,  imitatio  dei  (theocratic  principle), 

and  theory  of  ideas  (226-229). 

2.  Psalms  and  Proverbs 220--252 

Psalms  and  Proverbs  deal  chiefly  with  the  problem 

of  justice,  extending  the  discussion  upon  all  theoreti- 
cal principles  (292-331). — Defense  of  God-concep- 
tion against  deniers,  cosmological  proof  and  other 
arguments.  Motif  of  Attributes,  new  and  old 
formulas,  names  of  God,  Elohim-Psalms  (231-234). 
— Jewish  and  Platonic  God-conceptions,  theocratical 
idea,  the  "Happy"  CHE>K),  historic  Psalms,  the  theory 
of  ideas,  Wisdom,  Logos,  exemplum  praesens,  Torah, 
Plato's  State  (234-239).— To  the  Psalmists  prophecy 
is  a  matter  of  the  past,  reduced  grade  of  prophecy, 
Ruah  hak-Kodesh,  Holy  Spirit.  Free  will,  determin- 
ism (239-241).— Problem  of  retribution:  Solutions: 
the  End,  family  and  national  responsibility,  trial, 
contentment  of  the  righteous,  sexual  passion,  wine 
(241-244). — Eschatological  solution:  Conflicting 
utterances,  Sheol,  Ruah,  Bliss,  Light,  Life,  Good, 
Gehinnom,  Gan-Eden,  monotheistic  theory  of  cre- 
ation (244-247). — Cultural  life:  Psalms  and  Proverbs: 
aphoristic  form  of  literature,  Psalmodic  literature 
helped  overcome  sacrificial  cult,   no  complaint   of 


CONTENTS 


idolatry  in  Psalms  (and  Proverbs),  universalism  and 
nationalism,  Torah,  exemplum  praesens,  sin-offering, 
and  thank-offering    (247-252). 

Institution  of  Liturgy:  Confession  of  Faith.  .252-260 
Prayer  in  antiquity,  conditions  of  the  time  led  to  the 
establishment  of  Prayer,  Recital  and  Reading  from 
the  Torah  as  an  institution,  as  confession  of  Faith. 
The  Lists  of  Readings  in  Mishnah  different  from 
those  in  other  Talmudic  sources,  as  Torah-copy  in 
Temple  different  from  that  of  Province  (252-256). — 
"Order  of  the  Day:"  Definition  of  God  and  other 
theoretical  principles,  a  blend  of  Thirteen  and 
Priestly  Blessing,  historical  Dogmas,  Oral  Tradition, 
outlook  into  post-biblical  times,  the  Decalog, 
Christian  antinomism,  (256-260). 
,  Chronicles  (inclusive  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah) 

and  Daniel .•  •  •  261-277 

Chronicles,  Daniel,  Esther,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah: 
Presentation  of  pre-history  and  history  of  Israel 
from  Adam  to  Ezra  with  dynasty  of  David  as  the 
center  (261-263).— God-conception  influenced  by 
Plato,  idea  of  Mercabah,  angels  in  Chronicles  and 
Daniel,  reaction,  prophecy,  free  will,  retribution 
(261-263). — Reactionary  tendencies  and  obedience 
to  Law  in  Chronicles,  artistic  tendencies  in  worship, 
decorative  arts,  poetry  and  music,  against  inter- 
marriage, no  messianic-universalistic  ideas,  favors 
priest  and  Levites,  his  attitude  in  question  of  Passah- 
offering  (266-271).— Institution  of  music  and  song 
of  Levites  in  the  Temple  (271-273).— David  as  au- 
thority for  music  in  the  Temple,  Oral  Tradition  as 
Interpretation  and  Sopheric  Institutions  and  Com- 
mandments (274-277). 

.  Daniel  and  Koheleth •  •  .278-291 

Daniel  treats  national  and  individual,  Koheleth 
only  individual  problem  of  justice.  Daniel  leans 
on  Ezekiel  in  theory  of  angels  and  prophecy.  Resur- 
rection and  Spiritual  Immortality,  why  resurrection 
dogmatized  first,  controversy  between  Pharisees  and 
Sadducees  (278-281).— Koheleth:  Jewish  Philebos, 
influence  of  Plato,  Stoics  and  Epicure,  Koheleth's 
philosophy  of  life,  the  three  theological  postulates, 
denies  the  reality  of  our  conception  of  justice,  God's 
plan  mystery  (281-285).— Refutation  of  arguments 
in  defense  of  justice:  free  will,  cosmological  proof, 
long-suffering,  family  retribution,  Epicurean  attitude, 
eschatological   hopes,   Sheol,   ressurrection,  spiritual 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


individual  immortality,  Ruah  (285-288). — Contro- 
versy on  canonization  of  Koheleth,  Ezekiel,  Pro- 
verbs, Song  of  Songs  and  Esther,  reasons  pro  and 
con,  Apocrypha,  Koheleth  and  Job  about  the  in- 
comprehensible ways  of  God  (188-291). 

6.  Outlook  into  Post-Biblical  Developments 291-301 

Preformative  influence  of  biblical  Judaism  through 
all  later  ages,  talmudic-authoritative  and  Alexan- 
drian lines  of  development,  Graeco-Jewish  literature 
divides  in  Mercabah  and  theory  of  ideas,  further  in 
Historic  and  Philosophic  Groups,  both  presenting 
Judaism  in  the  light  of  Platonic  thought,  ideal  con- 
stitution and  ideal  philosophy.  For  Philosophy  of 
History  the  Bible,  and  not  Plato,  is  model  (291-294). 
— Rise  of  Christianity,  the  House  of  Hillel,  under 
Johanan  ben  Zaccai,  fights  it  with  Mercabah,  Akiba 
fights  antinomistic  Christology  with  Bereshith, 
theory  of  ideas.  Mercabah  and  Bereshith  preformed 
by  Ezekiel  and  Jeremiah.  The  Mishna,  develop- 
ment of  halachic  dialectics,  contact  with  Greek  and 
Arabic  Schools  of  Philosophy,  and  Karaitic  Move- 
ment lead  to  rise  of  dialectic  Jewish  Philosophy 
(294-298). — Influence  of  Aristotle  and  Neoplatonism. 
Book  of  Jecirah  from  School  of  Rabh.  Saadya- 
group  and  Gabirol-group  preformed  by  Jeremiah 
and  Ezekiel  as  also  Philosophy  and  Cabbalah. 
(298-301). 

BIBLE  REFERENCE 303—310 

INDEX 311—326 


INTRODUCTION. 
1.  Scope  of  the  Book 

THIS  book  has  for  its  object  the  presentation  of 
the  spiritual  development  of  Judaism  in  biblical 
times  in  its  theoretical  principles  as  well  as  in  the 
expressions  these  principles  found  in  the  cultural 
manifestations  of  life.  All  currents  and  tendencies, 
lawful  and  unlawful,  have  been  accorded  equal  at- 
tention. This  procedure  finds  its  justification  even 
in  the  fact  that  it  is  the  history  of  the  spiritual  de- 
velopment of  Judaism  which  is  the  object  of  this  book. 
And  history  teaches  us  that  almost  every  one  of  the 
currents  treated  here,  has  enjoyed  at  some  time  or 
other  a  certain  measure  of  authoritative  standing. 
However,  our  aim  is  not  only  to  register  the  facts  in 
Judaism's  spiritual  development,  but  also,  and 
primarily,  to  understand  and  to  present  in  the  light 
of  historical  evolutions  that  form  of  biblical  Judaism 
which,  in  spite  of  all  internal  and  external  changes, 
has  been  preserved  through  the  ages  up  to  our  own 
day.  This  aspect  of  our  presentation  made  it  im- 
perative for  us  to  pay  especial  attention  to  that  path 
in  the  development  which  marks  the  gradual  evo- 
lution and  consolidation  of  what  may  be  considered 
authoritative  Judaism  in  the  making.  Corresponding 
to  this  aim  special  attention  has  been  paid  to  the 
development  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  Torah. 

The  presentation  is  so  arranged  that  each  one  of 
the  four  periods  into  which  the  biblical  time  has  been 
divided,    concludes    with    a    decisive    phase    in    the 


xiv  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

history  of  the  Torah:  The  first  period  (first  chapter) 
concludes  with  the  proclamation  of  the  First  Book  of 
the  Covenant  as  "Torah";  the  second  (second  chapter) 
with  the  proclamation  of  Deuteronomy  as  "Torah"; 
the  third  (third  chapter)  with  the  proclamation  of  the 
enlarged  Priestly  Code,  together  with  Deuteronomy, 
as  "Torah";  and  the  fourth  (fourth  chapter)  with  the 
proclamation  of  our  Pentateuch  as  the  Torah. 

This  history  of  the  Torah  is  based  generally  on 
the  results  of  modern  biblical  criticism.  In  many 
points,  however,  we  differ  with  the  views  in  vogue. 
The  differences  in  detail  will  be  brought  out  in  the 
course  of  the  presentation.  Here  it  will  be  sufficient 
to  mention  two  cardinal  points  of  difference  as  the 
result  of  the  very  numerous  revisions  in  particular 
questions:  First,  the  conception  in  vogue  among  the 
critics  that  prophetic  Judaism  as  an  unofficial  doctrine 
was  opposed  to  the  official  doctrine  of  authoritative 
Judaism,  is  to  be  abandoned.  Not  only  is  there 
nothing  in  the  sources  to  back  up  this  assumption, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  an  impartial  examination  of  the 
sources  reveals  the  unquestionable  fact  that  the  so 
called  official  Judaism  represented  by  the  "Torah" 
of  a  given  time  has  always  been  the  result  of  the 
development  of  prophetic  Judaism  in  the  preceding 
period.  Thife  leads  up  to  the  other  point  of  difference: 
The  "unoverbridgeable  gap"  between  biblical  and 
Rabbinical  Judaism,  spoken  of  so  often  and  so 
tenaciously,  does  not  exist  at  all.  Our  presentation 
will  show  the  continuity  of  development  in  the 
spiritual  contents  of  Judaism  from  Bible  to  Talmud 
with  a  clear  outlook  into  later  periods. 


INTRODUCTION 


The  foregoing  will  be  sufficient  to  orient  the 
student  who  knows  the  scientific  situation  in  the 
questions  referred  to,  as  to  the  method  and  the 
practical  educational  aims  pursued  in  this  book. 
For  the  orientation  of  the  average  reader  I  republish 
here  my  popular  article  "Biblical  Criticism"  (Ameri- 
can Jewish  Chronicle,  Nov.  10  and  24,  1916,)  which 
I  read  in  the  Convention  of  the  Ohio  Jewish  Re- 
ligious Education  Association,  December  30,  1916, 
and  published  in  my  Hebrew  collection  of  essays 
"Mik-Keren  Zowith"  No.  2,  Asaph  Publishing 
Company,  New  Yqrk,  1918. 

2.  Biblical  Criticism. 

Of  late,  discussion  has  been  going  on  as  to  the 
compatibility  of  biblical  criticism  with  popular 
Judaism.  Many  have  written  and  spoken  on  this 
question  in  the  course  of  the  last  century,  yet  the 
question  is  to-day  almost  as  unsettled  as  it  was  atthe 
beginning  of  that  period.  The  scope  of  this  article 
is  to  review  the  situation  which  in  itself  may  con- 
stitute something  like  a  solution  to  the  puzzling 
problem.  , 

Now  everybody,  or  almost  everybody,  knows 
what  biblical  criticism  is,  still,  this  intending  to  be  a 
popular  article,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  state  first  what 
biblical  criticism  is.     It  is  essentially  this: 

According  to  the  view  in  vogue  with  the  Jewish 
masses  the  Torah  was  dictated  by  God  while  Moses 
was  busy  writing  it  down.  As  to  the  other  books  of 
the  Bible,  the  general  belief  may  be  said  to  ascribe 
the   books   bearing   the   names   of   certain   prophets, 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


like  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Hosea,  Amos,  and  so  on,  to 
these  prophets,  the  Psalms  to  David,  Proverbs,  Song 
of  Songs  and  Koheleth  to  Solomon,  and  Echah  to 
Jeremiah.  As  to  historical  books  like  Judges,  Kings, 
Chronicles,  Ruth,  and  Esther,  it  may  be  said  that  the 
Jewish  masses  do  not  hold  any  definite  view  as  to  who 
wrote  them  or  by  whom  they  were  compiled.  The 
same  may  be  said  as  to  particular  questions  which 
force  themselves  upon  every,  even  the  most  orthodox 
and  the  least  learned,  reader  of  the  Bible,  such  as  who 
wrote  those  parts  of  the  books  ascribed  to  certain 
prophets  in  which  their  death  and  the  events  after 
their  death  are  reported.  The  Jewish  masses  do  not 
hold  any  definite  view  about  these  questions,  leaving 
them  to  the  learned  who  certainly  know  all  about  it. 
Of  course  there  are  questions  the  views  about  which 
cannot  be  stated  in  any  average  formulation,  varying 
as  they  do  with  the  various  degrees  of  education, 
Jewish  and  secular.  So,  for  instance,  the  question 
as  to  who  wrote  those  parts  in  the  Torah  that  speak 
of  Moses,  or  those  parts  of  other  books  that  speak 
of  their  alleged  authors,  in  the  third  person,  is  not 
greatly  perplexing  even  to  the  unlearned  masses,  the 
great  majority  of  them  being  ready  to  tell  you  upon 
inquiry  that  it  is  not  unusual  for  ancient  writers  to 
speak  about  themselves  in  the  third  person.  The 
same  may  be  said  about  the  question  as  to  who  wrote 
the  last  eight  verses  of  the  Torah  relating  of  the  death 
of  Moses.  Even  those  who  know  nothing  about  the 
pertinent  controversy  in  the  Talmud,  know  in  a 
general  way  of  the  idea  that  the  Torah  is  a  pre- 
mundane  being  (knowing  nothing,  of  course,  about 


INTRODUCTION 


the  controversy  whether  created  or  eternal),  having 
been  written  "in  black  fire  upon  white  fire,"  and  as 
such  is  to  be  taken  as  a  whole  without  any  further 
questions.  Likewise  they  believe  that  in  cases  where 
events  of  the  future  are  not  related,  but  prophesied, 
there  is  no  difficulty,  for  instance,  in  believing  that 
Isaiah  could  forsee  the  events  prophesied  in  his  book 
from  chapter  forty  on. 

As  against  this  most  radical  orthodox  view  of  the 
unlearned  masses  (and  you  may  find  any  number  of 
them  in  the  pews  of  the  most  reformed  temples), 
there  exists  quite  a  large  class  of  learned  orthodox  Jews 
who  hold  a  view  which  may  be  designated  as  the  tra- 
ditional, critical  attitude  based  upon  certain  critical 
remarks  in  the  Talmud.  There  we  find  views  which 
differ  from  the  general  orthodox  view  characterized 
above.  Thus,  for  instance,  that  Moses  wrote  only 
the  fifth  book  of  the  Torah  (Deuteronomy)  and  some 
part  in  the  fourth  book,  leaving  open  the  question  of 
who  wrote  the  rest  of  the  Torah  (the  passage  in 
question,  Babli  Baba  Bathra  14-15,  which  commen- 
tators harmonize  in  different  ways  with  the  tradi- 
tional view,  being  most  likely  fragmentary) ;  that  the 
last  eight  verses  of  the  Torah,  relating  the  death  of 
Moses,  were  written  by  Joshua;  that  the  Psalms  are 
not  all  the  work  of  David  alone,  but  rather  of  ten 
different  Psalmists,  some  of  whom  lived  before 
David  (Adam,  Malkisedek,  Moses)  and  some  of  whom 
were  his  contemporaries,  David  being  the  final  com- 
piler of  the  book  of  Psalms,  as  we  have  it.  Similar 
views  and  speculations  as  to  authorship  we  find  in  the 
Talmud  about  other  books  of  the  Bible  also.     Then, 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


too,  we  find  some  speculation  as  to  when  the  different 
laws  contained  in  the  Torah  were  given,  distributing 
them  upon  the  pre-Sinaitic  station  of  Marah,  Sinai, 
Arboth  Moab,  and  the  land  east  of  the  Jordan, 
covering  the  period  of  the  forty  years  intervening 
between  the  Exodus  from  Egypt  and  the  entrance 
into  Palestine.  Then  there  are  observations  in  the 
Talmud  about  contradictions  in  the  Bible  in  the 
historical  reports  as  well  as  in  the  laws,  contradic- 
tions and  discrepancies  between  Moses  and  the 
prophets  (especially  between  some  laws  in  Ezekiel 
and  their  counterparts  in  the  Torah),  and  also 
between  the  different  parts  of  the  Torah  itself.  All 
of  these  contradictions  and  discrepancies  have,  of 
course,  found  their  harmonization  in  the  work  of  the 
Talmudists,  and  also  the  talmudical  remarks  about 
authorship  have  been  harmonized  by  later  com- 
mentators with  the  traditional  view.  But  in  spite 
of  this  there  have  always  been, 'as  there  still  are,  large 
numbers  of  learned  Jews  who  maintain  a  certain 
critical  attitude  in  these  questions,  without,  however, 
attempting  to  bring  their  views  into  anything  like 
a  definite  systematic  shape.  As  the  best  representa- 
tive of  this  class  may  be  mentioned  the  great  com- 
mentator Abraham  Ibn  Ezra  (12  century),  who  in 
many  a  passage  of  his  commentaries  reveals  in  rather 
enigmatic  language  that  he  had  doubts  and  suspicions 
as  to  the  authorship  and  the  time  of  certain  passages 
in  the  Torah  and  other  parts  of  the  Bible.  These 
two  views,  as  they  have  been  existing  through  the 
ages,  still  exist  to-day  in  those  sections  of  Jewry 
which  have  no  knowledge  of  modern  biblical  criticism, 
which  means  the  bulk  of  the  Jews  in  all  lands. 


INTRODUCTION 


The  first  to  rebel  openly  against  all  harmonizations 
and  to  insist  upon  a  critical  orientation  as  to  author- 
ship and  time  of  the  different  parts  of  the  Bible  was 
the  philosopher  Baruch  Spinoza.  He  utilized  the 
remarks  of  Ibn  Ezra  and  his  own  general  knowledge 
of  Jewish  sources  and,  feeling  himself  free  of  all 
Jewish  traditions,  undertook  to  establish  the  general 
idea  that  the  writers  of  the  biblical  books  all  agreed 
on  one  point  only,  viz.,  that  man  must  live  a  life  of 
righteousness  and  equity,  while  as  to  all  other  ques- 
tions, such  as  the  metaphysical  principles  of  Judaism 
and  historical  conceptions  (in  which  latter,  however, 
Spinoza  was  not  greatly  interested)  the  biblical 
writers  differ  among,  and  claim  no  authority  for, 
themselves.  In  order  to  understand  the  different 
views  laid  down  in  the  different  parts  of  the  Bible, 
one  must  study  the  Bible  and  the  history  of  the 
Jews  critically,  so  as  to  find  out  who  were  the  real 
authors  of  the  books  or  portions  of  books  under 
question,  in  what  environments  and  circumstances 
those  writers  lived,  and  so  on.  Spinoza  himself 
never  took  up  this  task,  but  his  suggestion  was  taken 
up  by  many  Christian  scholars  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  so  that  in  the  course  of  time  this  branch  of 
Jewish  science  has  become  the  almost  exclusive 
domain  of  Christian,  notably  Protestant,  scholars  in 
Germany  and  England.  There  were,  of  course,  a 
few  Jewish  scholars  who  did  some  work  in  the  field 
of  biblical  criticism,  such  as  Geiger  and  Zunz.  But 
Geiger  never  went  into  the  main  questions,  while 
Zunz,  although  he  succeeded  in  finding  some  of  the 
most  essential  features  of  the  so-called  Graf-Well- 
hausen  hypothesis,   is  never  given  credit  for  them 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


(perhaps  because  he  later  neglected,  almost  shunned, 
this  line  of  work). 

This  hypothesis  concerns  itself  with  the  compo- 
sition of  the  Torah,  the  most  important  and  the 
most  far-reaching  question  of  biblical  criticism — a 
question  in  the  face  of  which  the  question  whether 
Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz  or  a  so-called  Isaiah  the 
second,  is  the  author  of  the  prophecies  of  the  book 
Isaiah  beginning  with  chapter  forty,  or  other  questions 
of  that  kind,  fade  into  utter  insignificance.  The  gist 
of  this  hypothesis  which  has  since  found  many 
different  formulations,  is  about  this: 

The  Torah  is  the  product  of  a  long  literary  and 
religious  development.  Somewhere  in  the  ninth  and 
eighth  centuries  before  the  present  era  there  existed 
two  historical  books  covering  the  period  from  Abra- 
ham to  the  death  of  Moses  (or  of  Joshua,  according 
to  some).  The  author  of  the  one  they  call  Elohist 
(or  E)  because  he  uses  the  name  of  God  Elohim,  that 
of  the  other  Jahvist  (or  J)  because  he  uses  the  name 
of  God  Jahveh.  Each  one  of  these  two  books  con- 
tained an  account  of  the  history  of  the  patriarchs 
and  the  Israelites,  and  also  some  laws,  E.  containing 
the  laws  embodied  in  Ex.  chaps.  XX-XXIII,  and 
J  (perhaps)  those  of  Ex.  XXXIV.  Each  one  of  these 
books  enjoyed  some  authority  in  a  different  center 
of  Palestine.  Later  these  two  books  were  fused  into 
one  by  some  writer  whom  they  call  the  compiler  of 
JE  (JE).  The  new  compiler  (who  may  have  lived 
and  worked  sometime  in  the  seventh  century)  har- 
monized the  discrepancies  as  best  he  could  by  cutting 
here  and  adding  there.     This  book,  the  new  'Torah" 


INTRODUCTION 


so  to  say,  enjoyed  authority  to  a  larger  extent  than 
either  of  the  two  when  alone,  representing  as  it  did 
the  unification  of  the  two  great  forces  of  spiritual 
endeavor.  Later,  in  the  time  of  King  Josiah,  in 
the  year  621,  a  new  book  was  published  by  the  spiritual 
leaders  of  the  time,  including  the  king,  the  book 
which  is  known  under  the  name  Deuteronomy  (D) 
as  the  fifth  book  of  Moses  (minus  chaps.  I-IV, 
XXVII  and  XXIX-XXXIV  which  are  considered  as 
later  additions).  This  book  contains  an  historical 
introduction,  largely  a  brief  review  of  history  (Deut. 
V-XI),  as  given  in  JE,  a  collection  of  laws  (Deut. 
XII-XXVI),  essentially  an  enlargement  of  the  laws 
contained  in  JE  (Ex.  XX-XXI'II,  called  the  first 
Book  of  the  Covenant,  and  Ex.  XXXIV,  called  the 
little  Book  of  the  Covenant),  and  a  concluding 
admonition  setting  forth  the  consequences  of  dis- 
obedience (Deut.  XXVIII).  This  book  (D)  is 
supposed  to  have  ousted  the  book  JE  and  its  laws 
from  the  place  of  authority  it  occupied,  and  to  have 
placed  itself  in  authority  in  its  stead.  Later,  in  the 
time  of  Ezra,  we  find  two  more  books,  one  called  the 
Priestly  Code  (P)  and  the  other  the  Book  of  Holiness 
(H).  Each  of  these  two  books  contained  a  short 
historic  review,  P  beginning  with  the  creation  of  the 
world  and  H  with  the  exodus  (the  present  writer, 
however,  holding  that  also  H  contained  a  report  of 
creation  and  early  history),  and  a  collection  of  laws 
(P:  Ex.  XII,  XIII,  XXV-XXXI,  XXXV-XL; 
Lev.  I-XV,  XVI  (?),  XXVII;  and  almost  all  laws 
found  in  Num.;  H:  Lev.  XVII-XXV  with  some  ex- 
ceptions belonging  to  P;  Num.  XV,  37  f.  and  a  few 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


others  scattered),  H  containing  also  a  concluding 
admonition  (Lev.  XXVI),  like  Deuteronomy 
(XXVIII).  Later  these  two  books  were  fused  into 
one  (PH)  in  the  same  manner  as  J  and  E  into  JE. 
At  the  time  of  Ezra,  then,  there  existed  three  dis- 
tinct books,  JE,  D,  and  PH,  each  one  of  which  had 
an  historic  introduction  and  a  collection  of  laws. 
The  question  when  these  three  books  were  fused  into 
one,  the  Torah  in  its  present  form,  is  a  matter  of 
controversy,  the  general  belief  being  that  it  took 
place  in  the  time  of  Ezra  (the  present  writer  preferring 
the  later  date,  about  a  century  after  Ezra).  But  all 
critics  agree  that  the  present  Torah  is  the  product 
of  a  long  development  and  consists  of  the  constituent 
parts  mentioned  above.  This  explains  why  we  find 
some  historical  events  as  well  as  some  laws  repeated 
as  often  as  five  times,  corresponding  to  the  five 
distinct  sources  (E,  J,  D,  P,  H),  and  also  accounts 
for  contradictions  and  discrepancies  both  in  historical 
reports  and  in  formulations  of  laws,  contradictions 
and  discrepancies  which  the  final  redactors  thought 
they  had  harmonized  sufficiently,  but  which  were 
discovered  by  the  Talmudists  and  the  old  Jewish 
commentators  as  well  as  by  the  modern  critics,  with 
the  difference,  however,  that  the  former  (with  very 
few  exceptions)  reharmonized  them,  while  the  latter 
took  them  as  indications  that  our  Torah  represents  a 
fusion  of  different  "sources"  (this  being  the  technical 
designation  for  the  constituent  books)  into  one  book. 
These  indications  coincided,  in  the  minds  of  the 
critics,  with  recent  discoveries,  such  as  the  cuneiform 
tablets  and  the  like. 


INTRODUCTION 


In  the  wake  of  this  hypothesis  and  the  newly 
discovered  oriental  sources  there  came  a  new  orienta- 
tion in  the  meaning  of  the  message  of  the  prophets 
and  in  the  spiritual  position  of  Israel  among  the 
nations  of  the  ancient  world.  The  prophets,  accord- 
ing to  the  critical  view  in  vogue,  denounced  the 
specific  Jewish,  notably  the  sacrificial,  ritual  as  in 
fact  all  organized  religion  and  ritualism  altogether, 
and  preached  a  pure  ethical  (social)  message.  In  a 
word,  our  Torah  or  the  constituent  parts  thereof 
each  in  its  time,  was  denounced  and  repudiated  by 
the  prophets  who  insisted  that  only  the  ethical  laws 
are  worthy  of  being  embodied  in  the  national  religious 
charter  or  Book  of  the  Covenant;  some  hyper-critics 
going  so  far  as  to  hold  that  some  of  the  prophets 
were  opposed  to  all  and  any  written  law  or  Torah. 
Israel,  according  to  this  view  deserves  credit  only 
as  a  mediator  in  bringing  the  message  emphasized  by 
his  prophets  to  the  world,  since  in  all  essentials 
Israel  inherited  all  those  teachings  from  other,  older 
nations.  Even  the  belief  in  one  God,  monotheism, 
is  by  no  means  a  creation  of  Israel,  as  older  nations 
had  already  outspoken  leanings  towards  monotheism. 
This,  of  course,  is  the  view  of  the  most  radical  non- 
Jewish  scholars,  the  conservative  among  them 
harmonizing  to  an  extent  the  results  of  criticism  and 
the  newly  discovered  oriental  sources  with  the  old 
traditional  view  of  the  prophets  being  essentially  in 
harmony  with  the  Torah,  and  of  Israel  as  deserving 
a  certain  amount  of  credit  for  achievements  of  his 
own.  As  to  the  sources  on  which  ancient  Israel 
drew  the  doctrines,  teachings  and  laws  embodied  in 


xxiv  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

the  Torah  and  the  rest  of  the  Bible,  there  are  differ- 
ences of  opinion  among  the  scholars.  It  depends 
largely  on  the  special  field  of  endeavor  to  which  a 
scholar  has  devoted  himself.  The  Arabists  have 
traced  all  back  to  ancient  Arabic  culture,  notably 
the  Kenites,  to  whom  they  give  credit  for  the  Jahveh 
God-conception;  the  Assyriologists  are  inclined  to 
give  all  credit  to  Assyrians  and  Babylonians,  the 
Sumerists  to  the  Sumerians,  as  surely  as  the  Egypt- 
ologists to  the  Egyptians. 

How  did  the  Jews  react  to  this  conception  of  things? 

The  orthodox  among  the  learned  Jews  first  de- 
nounced all  biblical  criticism  as  heresy,  without 
attempting  a  scientific  refutation.  Later  they  made 
concessions  to  the  criticism  of  the  other  parts  of  the 
Bible,  insisting,  however,  on  the  unity  and  authen- 
ticity of  the  Torah.  The  late  Dr.  Jacob  Barth,  pro- 
fessor at  the  Theological  Seminary  and  the  University 
of  Berlin,  for  instance,  admitted  hesitatingly  that 
the  last  chapters  of  the  book  of  Isaiah  (chaps.  XL  f.) 
are  not  the  words  of  Isaiah  ben  Amoz.  At  the  same 
time  some  have  tried  to  refute  with  scientific  argu- 
ments the  above  hypothesis  concerning  the  com- 
position of  the  Torah.  Dr.  David  Hoffmann,  pro- 
cessor at  the  Berlin  Seminary,  wrote  several  books  and 
essays  in  refutation  of  that  hypothesis,  with  a  view 
toward  establishing  the  authenticity  of  the  Torah. 
In  doing  so,  however,  he  had  (as  the  present  writer 
has  shown  elsewhere)  to  make  many  concessions 
which  to  the  truly  orthodox  Jew  are  almost  as  in- 
acceptable  as  the  theory  of  the  radical  critics.  No- 
tably, he  had  to  admit  that  in  the  course  of  the  forty 


INTRODUCTION 


years  intervening  between  the  exodus  and  the  entrance 
into  Palestine  many  a  law  had  to  be  changed  and 
adapted  to  some  illegal  practices  produced  by  changed 
conditions.  Then,  too,  Hoffmann  confined  himself 
to  the  legal  portions  of  the  Torah,  neglecting  alto- 
gether to  account  for  the  contradictions  and  dis- 
crepancies in  the  historic  portions.  This  task  was 
taken  up  recently  by  a  younger  conservative  scholar, 
Dr.  Siegmund  Jampel  (Rabbi  in  Schwedt,  Germany, 
I  think),  who  in  a  number  of  articles  and  essays 
tried  to  justify  the  historic  accounts  of  the  Torah 
(and  some  other  parts  of  the  Bible),  to  harmonize 
them  with  or  to  defend  them  against  other  oriental 
sources.  But  aside  from  the  fact  that  he,  too,  had 
to  make  some  concessions  inacceptable  to  the  ortho- 
dox Jew,  he  has  so  far  confined  himself  to  special 
questions,  without  succeeding  in  presenting  an 
acceptable  comprehensive  view  of  all  the  chief 
problems  involved. 

Among  the  Jewish  scholars  of  the  liberal  wing 
there  were  such  as  made  concessions  from  the  very 
start  as  far  as  the  principle  goes,  but  contradicted  in 
details,  which  attitude  enabled  them  to  present  the  his- 
tory of  the  spiritual  development  of  Israel  and  his  con- 
tribution to  the  advancement  of  mankind  in  a  favorable 
light,  avoiding  the  unpleasant  features  connected  with 
this  point  in  the  view  of  radical  critics  (Geiger, 
Samuel  Hirsch,  Graetz).  A  scholar  of  our  own 
generation,  Dr.  Jacob,  rabbi  in  Dortmund,  Germany, 
attacked  the  critical  theory  about  the  Torah  on 
scientific  grounds,  accepting,  however,  the  general 
principle,  and  without  attempting  a  comprehensive 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


systematic  presentation  of  the  religious  and  literary 
development  leading  up  to  the  Torah  in  its  present 
form.  So  far,  the  present  writer  is  the  only  one  to 
have  attempted  a  systematic  presentation  comprising 
all  essential  questions  of  the  composition  of  the  Torah 
and  of  the  whole  religious  and  literary  development 
leading  up  to  the  Torah  in  its  present  composition. 
In  the  first  volume  of  my  Hebrew  work,  "History 
of  Dogmas  in  Judaism,"  and  in  my  German  work, 
"History  of  Jewish  Philosophy,"  I  have  accepted 
the  above  hypothesis  in  its  essential  points,  but  have 
shown  that  the  critics  have  overlooked  the  most 
vital  facts  in  the  religious  development  of  Judaism. 
They  overlooked  the  central  controversy  in  ancient 
Judaism  about  the  angels,  as  to  their  role  as  mediators 
between  God  and  man,  and  even  as  to  their  existence. 
In  consequence  of  this  oversight  they  were  in  the 
dark  as  to  the  attitude  of  the  different  prophets  and 
biblical  writers  in  the  question  of  creation.  Missing 
these  two  vital  points  they  necessarily  failed  to  see 
the  influence  of  these  questions  upon  all  other  ques- 
tions of  creed  and  law,  as  in  general  they  missed  the 
relation  of  the  prophets  to  the  authoritative  Books 
of  the  Covenant  of  their  respective  generations. 
They  overlooked,  in  a  word,  the  most  decisive  features 
of  the  development  of  the  God-conception  in  ancient 
Israel  with  which  all  other  questions  of  import  are 
bound  up  so  closely  that  in  missing  this  they  could 
not  but  miss  all  the  rest.  The  reason  why  these 
scholars  with  their  excellent  equipment  and  their 
great  achievements  failed  to  grasp  the  Jewish  spirit 
in  the  course  of  its  development,  I  cannot  now  state 


INTRODUCTION 


any  better  than  I  have  in  the  foreword  to  the  second 
volume  of  the  History  of  Jewish  Philosophy: 

"And  not  only  is  it  impossible  to  comprehend  and 
to  present  the  Jewish  Middle  Ages  without  orienta- 
tion in  Jewish  antiquity,  but  also  the  other  way: 
The  Old  Testament  scholars  and  the  Hellenists  who 
decline  to  orient  themselves  in  Rabbinic,  especially 
in  the  philosophic,  literature  of  the  Jewish  Middle 
Ages,  have,  all  of  their  valuable  achievements  not- 
withstanding, remained  outside.  They  have  not 
penetrated  into  the  spirit  of  the  Jewish  way  of  think- 
ing in  the  biblical  and  Greek  periods.  .  .  Judaism 
is  a  whole  entity  and  must  be  approached  and  com- 
prehended as  such." 

Non-Jewish  critics  often  say  the  Jews  are  not  fit 
to  read  the  Bible  with  the  right  unbiased  critical 
spirit.  And  it  may  be  that  they  are  right  to  a  certain 
extent.  Although  it  was  a  Jew,  Spinoza,  who  started 
modern  biblical  criticism,  it  may  be  so  indeed  that 
the  reverence  of  the  Jew  for  the  Bible  was  a  handicap 
to  his  progress  in  this  field,  and  that  he  was  indeed 
in  need  of  help  from  outside.  But  now,  while  paying 
our  gratitude  for  the  assistance  received,  we  are  en- 
titled and  bound  to  pass  the  word  back.  Only  a  Jew 
who  has  imbibed  the  Jewish  spirit  in  a  genuine 
Jewish  education  and  has  devoted  his  life  to  the  study 
of  Judaism  in  all  of  its  phases,  may  hope  to  be  able 
to  follow  the  Jewish  spirit  in  its  triumphal  course 
through  the  ages. 

Seen  in  this  light,  the  idea  that  the  prophets 
were  opposed  to  the  "Torah"  of  their  time,  because 
they  were  opposed  to  the  sacrificial  cult  or  to  ritualism 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


and  organized  religion  on  principle,  vanishes  like 
fog  before  the  sun.  And  also  the  view  that  not 
Israel,  but  other,  ancient  peoples  are  to  be  credited 
for  what  is  good  and  valuable  in  the  religion  of  Israel, 
proves  to  be  the  product  of  ignorance  as  to  what 
Jewish  religion  really  is.  Of  course,  it  is  not  always 
ignorance  alone  that  misleads  some  of  the  radical 
non-Jewish  critics.  At  times  there  is  what  the  late 
Dr.  Schechter  expressed  in  his  famous  epigram:  "High- 
er criticism — higher  anti-Semitism."  If  I  now  add 
that  there  have  always  been  Jews  who  in  their  articles 
or  books  on  the  subject  would  slavishly  copy  the 
radical  views  mentioned,  with  all  they  imply,  to  the 
detriment  of  Judaism,  I  have  said  all  I  care  to  say 
in  this  connection  about  the  attitude  of  Jewish 
scholars  toward  biblical  criticism. 

As  to  the  masses,  I  have  already  indicated  at  the 
outset  that  both  the  orthodox  as  well  as  the  reformed 
are  almost  wholly  in  ignorance  about  these  questions. 
The  question  we  have  to  face  now  is:  Is  it  right  to 
keep  them  in  ignorance? 

In  the  light  of  the  foregoing  it  will  be  readily 
seen  that  the  leaders  of  orthodox  Judaism  from  their 
standpoint  are  doing  the  right  thing  in  not  giving 
their  people  a  chance  to  become  informed  about  the 
critical  view.  Not  being  able  to  give  an  adequate 
scientific  presentation  of  the  questions  involved  in 
harmony  with  their  belief  in  the  authenticity  of  the 
Torah,  they  do  best  to  let  faith  alone  in  its  sublime 
inapproachability.  The  orthodox  leaders,  in  the 
vast  majority,  are  entitled  to  our  respect  for  their 
faith,   as  also   to   our   confidence   in    their    sincerity 


INTRODUCTION 


that  they  really  believe  what  they  say  they  believe. 
And  if  they,  knowing  of  the  arguments  of  the  critics, 
still  hold  tenaciously  to  their  faith  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  they  are  not  able  to  refute  the  essential 
arguments  against  their  belief  and  still  less  to  give  a 
comprehensive  systematic  view  of  the  main  questions 
— they  are  fully  justified  in  excluding  this  subject 
from  their  pulpits,  schools,  Bible  classes,  publications 
and  lecture  platforms,  if  they  do  so,  or  to  brush  the 
critical  views  aside  by  a  summary  declaration  that 
they  are  rank  heresy  and  scientifically  untenable 
at  that,  if  they  really  believe  that  they  have  refuted 
them.  Of  course,  the  orthodox,  also,  advance  pop- 
ular arguments  in  favor  of  the  traditional  view  of 
prophecy  in  general  and  of  the  authenticity  of  the 
Torah  in  particular,  but  these  arguments  must  be 
carried  on  without  any  technical  literary  amplifications. 
The  orthodox  rabbis  naturally  do  study  the  literature 
of  biblical  criticism  either  in  their  seminaries  or 
privately,  at  any  rate  they  ought  to  do  so,  and  large 
numbers  of  them  certainly  do.  But  while  it  may 
be  well  possible  to  give  some  instruction  in  this  sub- 
ject in  popular  classes  for  adults  and  the  more  mature 
youths,  it  is  hardly  worth  while  to  do  so,  since  the 
ultimate  aim  of  the  instruction  is  the  upholding  of 
the  traditional  view  which  the  pupils  in  question 
have  already  acquired  in  their  early  religious  edu- 
cation. The  harm  that  may  come  to  the  orthodox 
Jews  from  outside  information  about  biblical  criti- 
cism appearing  casually  in  newspapers  and  magazines, 
is  quite  sufficiently  met  by  occasional  summary  re- 
futations in  the  orthodox  pulpit  and  press. 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Far  different  from  this  is  the  situation  we  face 
in  the  reform  camp.  Reform  Judasim  not  only  may 
accept  the  principles  of  criticism,  but  is  actually  in 
need  of  some  such  principles.  If  there  happened  to 
be  no  biblical  criticism  at  all,  reform  Judaism  would 
have  to  formulate  of  its  own  accord  some  critical 
view  comprising  all  the  questions  involved,  or — to 
disappear  from  the  face  of  the  earth.  With  reform 
Judaism  it  is  a  question  of  life  and  death — "to  be  or 
not  to  be."  Reform  Judaism  rejected  the  old  tradi- 
tional view  of  the  Torah  and  its  authenticity,  right 
at  the  start.  The  first  move  to  abolish  or  to  relax 
in  the  practice  of  any  biblical  law  of  a  ritual  or  dietary 
nature  meant  the  repudiation  of  the  old  idea  of 
prophecy  and  of  the  absolutely  binding  authority 
and  the  authenticity  of  the  Torah.  The  remainder 
of  authority  that  the  Torah  has  retained  in  our  camp 
must  have  some  basis  to  rest  on.  Now  we,  the  rabbis 
and  teachers  of  the  reform  wing,  base  this  authority 
on  the  principle  formulated  by  Spinoza,  although 
we  differ  from  him  in  essential  aspects  of  the  question 
(cf.  my  Crescas  and  Spinnoza).  We  believe  in  the 
divine  inspiration  of  the  prophets  and  the  biblical 
writers  in  those  essentials  in  which  they  agree  or 
which  they  gradually  developed,  taking  their  last- 
ing differences  in  minor  points  of  creed  and  ritual 
to  be  the  changeable  human  element  in  the  divinely 
inspired  religion  of  Judaism.  This  principle  is  the 
magna  charta  of  reform  Judaism,  a  basis  solid  and 
reliable.  But  what  about  the  masses,  the  unlearned? 
What  is  to  them  the  basis  of  their  Judaism?  It  is  no 
exaggeration  to  state  that  to  the  bulk  of  the  reform 


INTRODUCTION 


Jews  the  basis  of  their  reform  Judaism  is  the  old 
orthodox  belief  in  the  authenticity  of  the  Torah, 
with  the  addition  that  somehow  or  other  the  rabbis 
of  every  generation  (and,  in  fact,  of  every  congre- 
gation) have  authority  to  change  matters  in  accord- 
ance with  the  demands  of  the  times.  Of  course, 
the  rabbis,  most  of  them,  weave  into  their  sermons 
and  lectures  now  and  then  some  remarks  indicating 
their  critical  views.  But  these  remarks  as  a  rule 
belong  to  those  parts  of  the  sermon  or  lecture  which 
fall  to  the  ground  without  leaving  any  trace  in  the 
minds  of  the  people  (You  know  there  are  such 
stretches  in  every  sermon  and  lecture) .  To  say  that 
the  orthodox  view  of  the  matter  does  not  harm  the 
people,  is  to  admit  that  reform  Judaism  cannot  stand 
on  its  own  feet  and  is,  therefore,  willing  to  accept 
whatever  assistance  it  may  get  from  the  fund  of 
orthodox  principles  which  it  protests  to  have  aban- 
doned. 

And  then,  too,  even  the  little  information  reform 
Jews  do  get  on  these  most  essential  questions  very  often 
does  them  more  harm  than  good.  The  sources  on  which 
the  less  learned  rabbis  and  teachers  of  Bible  classes 
and  lecturers  draw  are  very  often  polluted  with  the 
anti-Jewish  bias  which  is  to  be  found  in  most  of  the 
books  on  biblical  criticism.  You  can  hear  from  reform 
pulpits  that  the  prophets  were  opposed  not  only  to 
the  sacrificial  cult,  but  also  to  ritualism  in  general, 
although  the  rabbi  concerned  keeps  up  a  certain 
ritualism  in  his  own  synagogue.  You  can  find  in 
books  and  essays  written  by  reform  rabbis  and 
teachers    the  old   stale   anti-Jewish    talk   about    the 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


prophets  having  been  opposed  to  organized  religion, 
while  those  essayists  and  writers  themselves  are  en- 
gaged in  the  service  of  organized  religion.  Even 
the  best  among  our  rabbis  and  teachers,  who,  by 
their  learning  and  sagacity  are  able  to  pick  out  the 
grain  from  the  chaff,  show  alarmingly  the  lack  of  a 
comprehensive  systematic  Jewish  view  of  the  questions 
so  vital  to  reform  Judaism.  What  then  about  the 
less  learned,  who,  the  less  they  know,  the  more  they 
insist  on  talking  learnedly  on  these  questions  before 
their  audiences.  They  kill  the  Jewish  spirit  in  the 
hearts  of  their  listeners  without  realizing  what  is 
taking  place.  They  do  not  give  their  audience  any 
systematic  instruction  in  biblical  criticism,  but  they 
present  to  them  enough  of  the  anti-Jewish  talk  of 
non-Jewish  authors  and  their  Jewish  imitators,  to 
shake  them  in  their  religious  sentiments.  The  result 
may  be  said  to  amount  to  this:  Large  numbers  of 
reform  Jews  hold  the  same  views  on  these  questions 
as  our  orthodox  brethren,  but  for  the  minus  sign 
attached  to  it:  The  Torah  was  written  by  Moses, 
and  so  on,  but  they  do  not  believe  it.  And  to  ap- 
preciate how  great  the  harm  is,  we  must  consider 
that  also  our  religious  schools  are  caught  in  this 
net  of  ignorance  and  indolence.  On  the  whole  our 
children  get  the  same  ideas  about  the  questions 
under  discussion  here  as  the  children  in  the  orthodox 
schools.  But  in  the  higher  classes  they  are  simply 
told  that  reform  Judaism  differs  in  many  points  from 
the  old  orthodox  Judaism,  without  being  made  to 
see  whence   reform   Judaism   derives   its   authority. 


INTRODUCTION 


The  result  very  often  is  that  the  brighter  children, 
when  they  get  as  far  as  the  confirmation  class,  are 
shaken  in  their  religious  foundations  on  the  laying 
of  which  parents  and  teachers  had  been  working  all 
these  years. 

It  may  well  be  said  that  the  failure  of  reform 
Judaism  to  make  more  headway  than  it  has,  and  to 
have  a  firmer  hold  on  many,  notably  on  the  most' 
intelligent  and  most  educated  in  the  ranks  of  the 
reform  congregations,  is  due  to  the  chaotic  conditions 
which  I  have  just  described.  We  need  systematic 
instruction  in  these  questions  in  the  higher  classes 
of  the  religious  schools  and  in  smaller  Bible  classes 
where  work  of  that  kind  can  be  accomplished.  We 
need  popular  publications  on  these  questions,  ac- 
cessible to  the  average  intelligent  reader.  And  we 
need  a  reassertion  of  ourselves.  We  must  not  suffer 
the  anti-Jewish  spirit  in  Jewish  schools  and  Jewish 
institutions.  Everybody  is  free  to  think  and  to  write 
what  is  good  in  his  eyes,  but  our  Jewish  institutions 
must  be  free  to  teach  Jewish  Judaism.  We  must 
remove  "the  abomination  that  maketh  desolate" 
from  the  temple  of  the  Lord.  Reform  Judaism  built 
on  the  ground  prepared  for  the  most  part  by  scholars 
of  an  anti-Jewish  spirit  and  an  anti-Jewish  bias,  is 
built  on  sandy  soil.  But  reform  Judaism  built  on  a 
solid  Jewish  basis,  on  a  critical  view  permeated  with 
the  Jewish  spirit  that  has  dominated  the  ages  of  our 
development  in  his  creative  evolution,  will  wield 
much  more  power  within  and  without  than  is  the 
case  at  present. 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


3.    The  Sources  of  the  Torah 

By  giving  here  a  Table  of  Sources  of  the  Torah 
I  do  not  mean  to  suggest  that  the  only  right  way  of 
reading  the  Torah  is  to  read  each  constituent  source 
separately.  On  the  contrary,  I  believe  that  the 
Torah,  as  well  as  the  rest  of  the  Bible,  should  be 
read  for  religious  edification  in  the  traditional  way 
without  paying  attention  to  any  kind  of  biblical 
criticism  whatsoever.  The  Bible  has  fulfilled  its  great 
mission  for  religious  and  moral  progress  of  humanity 
by  the  un-analysed  ensemble  of  the  psychological 
impression  it  leaves  in  the  heart  of  the  reader.  But 
the  fact  of  the  matter  is,  we  need  both.  We  must  read 
the  Bible  without  any  further  critical  orientation  for 
its  potent  psychological  efficiency  in  the  upbuilding 
of  religious  sentiment  and  moral  character,  but  we 
also  must  read  the  Bible,  and  most  especially  the 
Torah,  critically,  if  we  are  to  have  an  adequate 
scientific  view  of  the  history  of  thought  in  Judaism 
in  biblical  times.  The  influence  of  the  Bible,  as 
read  in  the  traditional  way,  upon  the  mind  of  the 
modern  Jew  or  Jewess  will  be  much  the  stronger 
for  the  adequate  knowledge  of  things  acquired  through 
scientific  study.  And  it  is  for  this  reason  that  I  give 
here  the  table  of  sources  of  the  Torah.  The  intel- 
ligent reader  will  get  the  gist  of  the  book  without 
orienting  himself  in  the  details  of  analysis  and  syn- 
thesis of  sources.  But  his  knowledge  will  be  more 
firm  and  adequate,  if  he  will  read  the  sources  of  the 
Torah  each  by  itself,  and  imbibe  the  distinct  im- 


INTRODUCTION 


pression  from  the  reading  of  each  source  as  isolated 
from  the  other  constituents  of  the  composition. 

The  following  Table  of  Sources  is  the  one  generally 
in  vogue  among  critics,  as  compiled  by  Driver.  In 
instances  where  I  differ  with  this  table,  it  will  be 
expressly  stated. 

I.     Genesis. 

To  the  Priestly  Code  (P)  which  constitutes  the 
frame  of  the  entire  Torah  in  its  present  shape,  belong 
the  following  parts:  (a,  b,  c  stand  for  first,  second, 
third,  part  of  a  verse) : 

I,  l-II,  4a;  V,  1-28,  30-32;  VI,  9-22;  VII,  6,11,13- 
16a.18-21.24;  VIII,  l-2a,3b-5,  13a,  14-19;  X,  1-7,  20, 
22,23,31-32 ;XI,  10-26,27,31,32;  XII,  4b,  5;  XIII,  6, 
llb-13a;  XVI,  la,  3,15,16;  XVII;  XIX,  29;  XXI,  lb, 
2c-5;XXIII;  XXV,  7-lla,  12-17, 19,20,26c;  XXVI, 
34,35;  XXVII,46-XXVIII,9;  XXIX,  24,29;  XXXI, 
18b-c;  XXXIII,  18a;  XXXIV,  l,2a,4,6,8-10,13-18, 
20-24,25  (in  part),  27-29;  XXXV,  9-13,15,22b-29; 
XXXVI  (in  the  main,  some  elements  evidently  drawn 
from  another,  unidentified,  source);  XXXVII,  1,2a 
(to  "Jacob");  XLI,  46;  XLVI,  6-27;  XLVII,  5,6a,7- 
ll,27c,28;  XLVIII,  3,6,7  (?);  XLIX,  la,28c-33;  L, 
12,13. 

And  also  in  other  parts  of  the  book  there  are  some 
elements  of  P,  but  they  are  so  organically  fused  with 
elements  from  other  sources  as  to  make  an  analysis 
impossible. 

To  the  Younger  Jahvist  (J2)  belong  the  following 
parts: 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


II,  4c-III,  24;  IV,  1-26;  V,  20;  VI,  1-4,5-8;  VII,  1- 
5,7-10  (in  the  main;  there  are  here  elements  from  P), 
12,16c-17,22,23;  VIII,  2c,3a,6-12,13c,20-22;  IX,  8-19, 
21,24-30;  XI,  1-9,28,30. 

What  remains  of  the  book  of  Genesis  after  the  de- 
duction of  the  parts  belonging  to  P  and  J2,  belongs 
to  the  Elohist  (E)  or  to  the  Jahvist  (J),  in  some 
cases,  however,  the  fusion  is  much  too  organic  and  is 
left  without  analysis  (JE): 

J:  XII,  l-4a,6-20;  XIII,  l-5,7-lla,12b-18; 

E:  XV:  JE 

J:  XVI,  lc,2,4-14; 

XIV,  the  battle  of  the  Kings,  belongs  to  a  special 
source,  evidently  a  later  reproduction  of  an  old  account. 

J:  XVIII,  1-XIX,  28,30-38; 

E:  XX,  1-17(18); 

J:  XXI,  la,2a,7  (?), 33; 

E:  XXI,  6-32a  (32c), 

The  verses  in  brackets  seem  to  belong  to  the  redactor 
of  JE. 

J:  XXII,  15-18;      20-24; 


E 
J: 

:  (XXI,  34);  XXII,  1-14; 
XXV,  1-6,  llc,18,21-26a,27-34; 

19, 

J: 

XXVII,  1-45; 

XXVIII, 

10, 

13-16 

> 

E 
J: 

XXVIII,  19, 

11,12, 
2-14 

, 

17,18, 

D  20-22;  XXIX,  1,  15-23,25-28,30; 


INTRODUCTION 


J:  XXIX,  31-35; 3-5,    7,    9-1  ff, 

E:  XXX,  l-3b      6,    8,  17-20b 

J :  XXX,  20,  24-43 ;  XXXI,  1,3, 

E^  20c-23, 

Jh 46,         48-50; 

E:XXXI,2,4-18a,19-45,        47,  51-54 

In  chapter  XXXI  there  evidently  are  some  elements 
from  P,  notably  in  22a. 

J: 4-14a,  23,      25-33; 

E:XXXII,  1-3  14b-22,      24, 

J:XXXIH,  1-17,  XXXIV,  20,3,5,7,11,12,19. 

E:  18c-20; 

J:  XXXIV,  25  (part), 26,30,31; 14  (?) 

E:  XXXV,  1-8, 

J: 21,22a; 

E:  XXXV,  16-20 

J: 12-21  25-27       28b 

E:XXXVII,2c-ll  22-24  28a"       28c-30 

In  XXXVII,  2c-21  the  analysis  is  uncertain;  in  22-24 
there  are  additions  of  the  redactor. 

J:  XXXVII,  31-35      XXXVIII;  XXXIX; 

E:  36; 

Jj 38-XLIV,  34; 

E:  XL,XLI,  1-45,47-57;  XLII,  1-37 

In  chapter  XL  there  are  traces  of  J,  as  also  in  XL  I, 
1-45;XLIII,  14  and  23c:  E. 


xxxviii         THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Jj 28-XLVII,  4,6b 

E:XLV,1-XLVI,5  ~ 

J: 13-26,278,29-31; 

E:XLVII,  12,  XLVII1,  1-3 

J: XLIX,  lc-28a;L,  1-11,14 

E:XLVIII,  8-22  (13,14,17-19  J?) ;  15^26 

2.     Exodus 

P:  I,  1-5,      7,  13,14 23b-25; 

J:  6,      8-12, 15-23a 

E:  15-22;  11,1-14 

J:  7,8  16-20,  IV,  1-16, 

E:III,l-6         9-15,  21,22;  17,18 

P: 2-VII,  13; 

J:  IV,  19,20a 22-VI,l " 

E:  20b,21 

Pj 19,20(a) 21c,22 

j: UAS 

E:  VII,  12  (part)  20b,21a 

P: VIII,  1-3 

J:  VII,  23,        25-29, 


F-  24,  4-1  la 

P:  VIII,  11-15 8-12 

Jj 16-IX,7  13-21, 

E:  22,23a 

J:  IX  23b-34,      X,  1-7,  13b    -   19   " 

E;  35,  8-13a       14a 


INTRODUCTION  xxxix 


P: 

9.10; 

J: 

28-29; 

4-8, 

E: 
P: 

X,  20-27          XI, 
XII,  1-20         28 

1-3 

37a            40 

-  51; 

J: 

29 

>,  30 

E: 
P: 

XIII, 

,  1,  2 

31-36         37b-39 

42a 

J: 

21, 

22; 

E: 

17-19 

JE 
P: 

:  XII 
XIV, 

,  21-27;  XIII 

1-4      8,  9 

,  3-16 

15-18 

21a 

J: 

5-7        10a       11 

-14                19c, 

20 

E: 
P: 

21c-23 

10b                    19a 
26-27a       28,  29 

J; 

XIV, 

21b            24, 

25 

2  7b           30, 

31; 

E: 
P: 

(19) 

J: 

- 

22-27; 

E:  XV,  1-18        20,  21 

As  against  this  analysis  I  have  shown  in  Tholdoth 
that  some  of  the  passages  about  the  hardening  of  the 
heart  of  Pharao  cannot  be  ascribed  to  the  Priestly 
Code. 

P:  XVI,  1-3        6-24  31-36;  XVII,  la. 

Jj 4,  5         25-30 lb,  2 

E:  3^6 


xl  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


P: 

XIX,  1,  2a 

J: 

XVII,  7 

E: 

8-16;  XVIII;                     2b. 

J: 

20-25; 

E: 
P: 

XIX,  3-19  (in  the  main)            XX,  1-XXIII,  33; 

15-18a 

J: 

XXIV,  1,  2,      9-11 

E: 
P: 

3-8        12,  14            18b 
XXV,  1-XXXI,  18a 

J: 

9-14 

E: 

18b;  XXXII,  1-8        15-29 

E: 
P: 

XXII,  30-XXXIII,  6  (in  the  main),  7-11 

29-35;  XXXV-XL; 

J: 

XXXIII,  12-XXXIV,  28. 

In  our  presentation  we  differ  in  many  essential 
points  from  the  views  at  the  basis  of  this  analysis, 
notably  as  to  passages  on  the  golden  calf  and  the 
thirteen  attributes  in  chapters  XXXII-XXXIV,  those 
on  the  Cherubs,  Urim  ve-Thumim,  Hoshen  and 
Ephod,  and  others  on  erection  and  equipment  of  the 
Tabernacle  and  the  holy  service. 

3.  Leviticus. 

P:  I-XVI; XXVII; 

H:  XVII-XXVI; 

Our  presentation  differs  with  this  analysis  as  to 
the  scape-goats  in  XVI  which  we  ascribe  to  the  Book 


INTRODUCTION  xli 


of  Holiness,  as  also  in  the  analysis  of  chapters  XVIII 
and  XX  as  to  the  distribution  of  the  laws  on  capital 
punishment  and  Khareth. 

4.  Numbers. 

P:     I,  1-X,  26; XIII,  l-17a  21 

JE:  XI;  XII;  17b-20       22-24 

P:    XIII,  25,  26a(exc.ofKadeshah)  32a 

JE:  26b-31       32b,33; 

P:     XIV,  1,  2  (in  the  main)        5,  7        10  26-30 

JE:  3,4       8,9     11-25 

P: 34-38  XV;  XVI,  la 

JE:  XIV,  31-33  39-45.  lc,  2a 

P:     XVI,  2b-7a  (7b-ll)  (16,  17)  18-24  27a 

JE:  12-15  25,  26 

P: 32b     35;XVII>(l-5)6-28;XVHI;XIX; 

JE:  XVI,  27c  -  34 

P:     XX,  la     2     3c,  4  6-13  22-29; 

JE:  lb  3a         5        14-21 

P: 4a        10,11;  XXII,  1 

JE:  XXI,  1-3     4c-9  12-34;  2-XXIV,  25; 

P: 6-19;XXVI-XXXI; 

JE:  XXV,  1-5 

P: 18,  19 

JE:  XXXII,  1-17  (in  the  main)  20-27  (most) 

P:     XXXII,  28-32  (33)     33-36 

JE:  34     -     42 


xlii  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

I  believe  that  in  the  passages  about  the  distribu- 
tion of  the  land  the  elements  of  Urim  ve-Thumim 
and  Lot  do  not  belong  to  P,  as  generally  assumed; 
cf.  Tholdoth  and  Crescas  and  Spinoza. 

5.     Deuteronomy. 

Deuteronomy  is  distributed  upon  the  following 
constituent  sources:  1.  D — Deuteronomy  proper; 
2.  D2 — later  redactor  of  Deuteronomy;  3.  P;  4.  JE, 
and  some  special  sources: 

1  and  2 : 

D:    1,1,2,4-111,13  18-IV,  28  32-40 

D2:  14-17  29-31  41-49 

D:    V,  1-XXVI,  19; 9,10       

D2:  XXVII,  l-4,7c,8         11-13(14-26); 

D:    XXVIII;  XXIX,  1-8 11-20; 

D2:  9-28;  XXX,  1-10 

D:    XXXI,  1-13,  24,  27  XXXII,  45-47; 

D2:  28-30; 

D2:  XXXIV,  11,  12. 

3:P:I,   3;  XXXII,   48-52;  XXXIV,    l(some  words 
from  JE).  5b,  7-9. 

4:  JE:  XXVII,   5-7a;  XXXI,    14,    15,   23;  XXXIV, 
la  (parts),  lb-5a,  6,  10. 

5:  Special    sources:    XXXI,     16-22;    XXXII,     1-44; 
XXXIII; 


First  Chapter 
PRE-SINAITIC  PERIOD. 

WHOEVER  approaches  the  historical  documents 
of  the  Bible  with  the  determination  to  examine 
and  judge  them  without  prejudice  to  the  right  or  to 
the  left,  cannot  help  recognizing  the  historical  kernel 
even    in    those    sections,    where    contradictions    and 
evidently   legendary    traits    in    the   various   reports, 
as   also,   and   especially,   certain   political,   religious- 
cultural  and  literary-artistic  motifs,  indicate  beyond 
a  doubt  that  this  or  that  biblical  writer  deviates,  at 
any    rate    objectively,    from    the    historical    truth    in 
certain  details.         From  this  point  of  view  it  is  justi- 
fied, if  not  to  follow  the  radical  Babylonians   (like 
Jensen  and  others)  in  their  exaggerations,  so  at  least 
to   assume,    in   accordance   with   the   report   of   the 
Torah,  that  the  spiritual  development  of  the  Abra- 
hamites,  the  ancestors  of  a  prominent  part  of  ancient 
Israel,   was   a   continuation   of   the   development   in 
ancient   Babylonia.     This,   indeed,   is   confirmed   by 
a  comparison  of  Babylonian-Assyrian  literature  with 
Biblical  (-Talmudical)  literature.     Such  a  comparison 
makes  it  clear  at  once  that  the  spiritual  development 
of  ancient  Israel  moves  along  the  same  lines  as  the 
ancient   Babylonian  development  within   which   the 
former   presents   itself   as   a   religious   and     cultural 
reform-movement.     All  reports,  pointing  as  they  do 
into  opposite  directions,  indicate  that  the  Abraham- 
ites,  the  Hebrews,     have  gone  on  their  wanderings 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


through  a  spiritual,  and  probably  also  through  a 
racial,  cross-breeding  with  other  nations,  in  Egypt 
and  around  the  Sinai-Peninsula,  melting  afterwards 
into  a  loose  national  unit  with  the  Israelites  in  Canaan. 
(Some  believe  that  the  Abrahamites  originated  in 
Canaan  whence  they  emigrated  to  Babylonia,  only 
to  return  later  into  the  land  of  their  origin.  Accord- 
ing to  this  view  the  Abrahamites  reunited  themselves 
later  in  Canaan  with  their  own  tribes.)  But  in  spite 
of  all  these  various  elements  which  entered  into  the 
development,  the  Babylonian  element  remained  the 
chief  movent  of  the  reform  movement;  the  mere  so 
as  almost  all  of  these  foreign  elements  were  Semitic 
in  their  origin,  depending  on  Babylonia-Assyria  in  all 
things  religious  and  cultural. 

But  what  was  the  driving  power  in  the  Abrahamitic 
reform-movement?  A  comparison  of  Babylonian- 
Assyrian  religious  literature  with  Biblical  literature 
results  in  the  following  orientation : 

In  the  center  of  the  religious  and  cultural  life  of 
Babylonia  was  the  sexual  motif.  This  motif  pre- 
vented the  Babylonians  from  progressing  on  the  road 
to  monotheism  upon  which  they,  indeed,  had  started 
in  the  course  of  their  development.  So  long  as  the 
sexual  motif  dominates  in  the  sphere  of  the  Divine, 
there  can  be  no  idea  of  an  intellectual,  incorporeal 
divine  Being.  This  feature  is  more  decisive  than 
that  of  arithmetical  unity.  Gods  that  are  born  are 
no  absolute  cosmological  potencies;  gods  that  are 
subject  to  any  passion  whatsoever  are  no  absolute 
ethical  ideals.  It  was  of  no  avail  to  the  Babylonians, 
even  though,  at  times  at  least,  they  really  did  recog- 


PRE-SINAITIC  PERIOD 


nize  one  of  the  gods  as  "God  of  gods"  and  did  unite 
upon  him  many,  though  never  all,  of  the  attributes. 
This  "King  of  the  gods"  (whether  it  was  Ea,  Anu, 
Marduck  or  Ashur)  could  not  do  without  the  female 
half,  and  this  alone  was  sufficient  to  destroy  the 
arithmetical,  and,  even  to  a  still  greater  extent,  the 
cosmologico-ethical  unity  of  the  divine  being. 

This,  then,  was  the  first  step  in  the  progress  of 
the  Abrahamites  beyond  the  Babylonians  on  the  road 
to  religious  and  cultural  progress.  They  realized  that 
the  divine  Being  must  be  exalted  above  this  most 
aggressive  of  all  human  passions,  the  sexual  motive, 
altogether,  in  order  to  be  able  to  be  really  just  and 
impartial.  The  efforts  that  were  made  to  overcome 
this  motive,  led  to  the  conception  of  an  incorporeal, 
intellectual  Being.  A  being  exalted  above  the  sexual 
cannot  be  presented  in  a  perfect  image,  a  fact  which 
led  gradually  to  the  conceiving  of  the  idea  of  a  Being 
of  pure  spirit  and  to  the  prohibition  of  making  an 
image  (roDD)  of  God. 

This  insight  into  the  nature  of  the  Divine  gradu- 
ally revolutionized  all  forms  of  life,  religious  and 
cultural.  It  is  safe  to  presume  that  this  exalted 
conception  of  God  was  first  conceived  by  one  great 
personality,  (which,  of  course,  was  the  product  of  the 
accumulated  efforts  of  the  past),  and  that  even  in  the 
next  following  generation  those  were  only  few  who 
were  able  to  fathom  this  great  idea  and  utilize  it  in 
their  lives.  Moreover,  it  would  seem  that  even  in 
the  leading  intellectual  circles  the  progress  was  going 
on  at  a  very  slow  pace.  The  narration  of  the  "Sons 
of  God,"  or  the  Angels,  who  took  unto  themselves 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


wives  from  the  "Daughters  of  Adam"  according  to 
their  own  choice  (Gen.  VI)  shows  clearly  that,  even 
within  the  literary  period,  when  they  could  not 
ascribe  the  sexual  motive  to  God  any  more,  they 
would  not  hesitate  to  ascribe  it  to  the  angels.  Never- 
theless, the  oldest  literary  material  in  its  totality 
warrants  the  assumption  that  the  leading  circles 
were  well  aware  of  the  fact  that  a  real  reform  of  life 
in  religion  and  culture  can  never  be  achieved,  unless 
the  sexual  motive  will  be  eliminated  entirely  from  the 
sphere  of  the  Divine.  An  orientation  in  the  historical 
narrations  of  the  Bible  indicates  clearly  that  almost 
all  sections  in  which  the  sexual  motive  plays  any  part, 
belong  to  the  oldest  documents  of  the  Bible. 

By  saying  this  we  admit,  of  course,  that  the  biblical 
writers  alluded  to  were  not  able  to  free  themselves 
entirely  from  the  sexual  motif  in  their  literary  pro- 
duction. However,  a  comparison  with  Babylonian- 
Assyrian,  and  general  Semitic,  parallels  to  those 
narrations  shows  beyond  a  doubt  that  these  writers 
whose  productions  were  the  primary  sources  of  our 
Biblical  narrations,  were  progressing  greatly  in  de- 
cisive points  on  the  road  to  ethical  monotheism. 

It  was  by  no  means  an  easy  task  to  do  away  with 
the  sexual  motive.  To  do  so  meant  to  rob  the  people 
of  their  religion,  their  literature  (written  or  oral), 
their  art.  Perhaps  it  was  just  the  restraint  the 
writers  imposed  upon  themselves  in  this  regard,  that 
helped  them  to  bring  the  people  to  a  realization  of 
one  divine  Being  exalted  above  others,  as  God.  God 
is  exalted  above  the  sexual  motive,  the  gods,  however, 
the  angels,  remain  to  these  writers  (whose  type  we 


PRE-SINAITIC  PERIOD 


have  before  us  in  Gen.  VI,  If.)  so  as  the  people  knew 
and  loved  them.  The  angels  have  intercourse  with 
men,  and  some  nations  trace  their  pedigree  up  to 
them  as  their  divine  ancestors.  The  angels  continue 
to  appear  in  human  form,  while  God  himself  is  thought 
to  be  exalted  above  this  form  of  manifestation. 
This  was  the  degree  of  intellectuality  of  the  divine 
Being  attainable  for  that  early  period,  which  later 
ha?  become  the  origin  of  the  prohibition  to  make 
an  image  of  God  (Ex.  XX,  23)  and  which  was  codified 
in  the  Sinaitic  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Exodus  XX- 
XXIII,  with  some  omissions).  But  by  and  by  the 
postulates  of  these  prophetic  writers  went  further 
than  this,  in  that  they  excluded  also  the  angels  from 
the  sexual  motive,  even  though  not  yet  from  appear- 
ing in  human  forms  on  earth.  The  early  history  of 
the  nation,  in  which  the  ancestors  were  presented 
as  of  divine  origin,  was  rew"ritten  by  these  writers 
(or  bards,  or  story  tellers).  In  this  new  version  God 
and  the  angels  retained  but  a  providential  relation  to 
the  family  affairs  of  men.  And  these  relations  are 
of  such  a  nature  that  through  them  the  purity  of  the 
family  of  the  Abrahamites  stands  out  prominently  as 
against  the  corruption  of  other  nations,  some  of 
whom  owe  their  existence  to  an  act  of  incest,  like 
Moab  and  Amnion  (Gen.  XIX,  30-38,  as  compared 
with  the  story  of  Sarah-Pharao,  Sarah-Abimelech 
and  Rebecca-Abimelech).  These  efforts  were  leading 
up  to  an  even  more  rigid  intellectual  conception  of 
God.  Exaltedness  above  sexuality  and  corporeality 
was  being  expressed  by  the  word  "holy."  This  word, 
KTip,  assumed  an  eminently  ethical  meaning,  already 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


in   pre-Sinaitic   times,   even   though   it   was   not   as 
pregnant  with  meaning  as  in  later  times. 

Thus  we  have  arrived  at  another  point  in  which 
the  God-conception  of  the  pre-Sinaitic  writers  differ- 
entiated from  the  Babylonian  conception.  Of  course 
you  can  find  any  number  of  ethical  attributes  with  the 
Babylonians  as  well  as  with  other  Semites,  but  none 
in  the  sense  of  ethical  holiness,  as  they  are  to  be  found 
in  the  Bible  (and  later  in  Plato).  Now  to  this  Plus 
with  the  Abrahamites  on  the  one  hand  there  is  a 
corresponding  Minus  on  the  other.  The  divine  at- 
tribute of  Creator,  as  also  all  other  cosmological 
attributes  so  often  met  with  in  Babylonian  literature, 
disappears  entirely  from  the  literary  products  of  the 
Abrahamites  (not  to  be  taken  up  again  until  Jeremiah) . 
A  monotheistic  conception  of  creation  was  out  of 
reach  to  these  writers,  especially  on  account  of  their 
belief  in  the  existence  of  eternal  angels.  The  cos- 
mogonic  myths  familiar  to  them  were  entirely  too 
much  permeated  with  the  sexual  motive,  as  also  with 
the  motives  of  strife,  envy  and  rebellion  amongst  the 
gods,  as  to  invite  these  writers  to  reshape  them  in  the 
monotheistic  spirit.  Evidently  for  this  reason  they 
neglected  all  cosmogony,  devoting  themselves  to  the 
national  history  without  paying  any  attention  to  the 
origin  of  mankind.  The  oldest  known  sources  of  the 
Torah,  the  Elohist  and  the  older  Jahvist,  start  their 
narrations  with  Abraham  (the  Elohist  sets  in  Gen. 
XV,  the  older  Jahvist  Gen.  Xl-end).  This  elimina- 
tion of  the  cosmological  element  from  the  God-con- 
ception dates  back  to  pre-Sinaitic  times,  as  it  would 
appear  from  the  fact  that  we  do  not  find  any  inkling 


PRE-SINAITIC  PERIOD 


of  a  cosomological  attribute  in  the  first  Book  of  the 
Covenant,  a  book  in  which  we  well  may  look  for  a 
comprehensive  expression  of  all  efforts  and  achieve- 
ments in  pre-Sinaitic  times. 

This  differentiation  of  the  point  of  view  in  the 
God-conception  brought  about  a  radical  alteration  in 
the  literary  motifs  of  the  writers.  There  are  in  Baby- 
lonian-Semitic literature  all  kinds  of  motifs  dominat- 
ing in  the  conception  of  history  and  legend,  such  as 
astrologico-magical,  national-political,  eschatological 
and  others,  while  the  motif  of  attributes,  that  is  to 
say  the  motif  which  presses  all  narration  and  all  song 
into  service  to  emphasize  the  ethical  monotheistic 
God-conception,  was  barely  in  its  incipient  stages. 
Also  the  Abrahamitic  writers  utilize  all  these  motifs, 
including  the  sexual,  but  the  motif  of  attributes 
comes  with  ever  increasing  denniteness  into  the 
center  of  interest.  All  literature  and  all  speculation 
aim  in  the  first  line  at  the  elucidation  of  the  ethical 
God-conception.  Some  instances  of  the  motif  of 
attributes  as  an  artistic  motif  of  literary  composition 
we  will  see  in  products  of  later  periods,  but  the  ex- 
tensive use  of  this  motif  goes  back  to  those  pre- 
Sinaitic  times  in  which  the  prophets  and  the  writers 
of  Israel's  ancestors  were  shaping  the  monotheistic 
God-conception  by  gradually  combining  the  attributes 
and  names  of  all  the  gods  and  uniting  them  upon  one 
divine  being,  thus  depriving  all  the  other  gods,  the 
angels,  of  all  of  their  names  and  attributes.  In  the 
Bible  (except  for  the  late  book  of  Daniel)  an  angel 
has  no  proper  name  nor  any  attribute  of  his  own. 
Asked   for   his   name,    he   gives   an   evasive   answer, 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


although  he  does  have  a  temporary  name  according 
to  the  function  that  happens  to  be  incumbent  upon 
him.1  Of  course,  the  passages  alluded  to  here  are 
found  but  in  post-Sinaitic  literature,  since  there  is  no 
literary  product  identifiable  as  a  whole  as  pre-Sinaitic. 
But  the  fact  that  the  exclusive  claim  of  the  one  God 
upon  all  names  and  attributes  has  condensed,  already 
in  the  Sinaitic  Book  of  the  Covenant,  into  the  pro- 
hibition of  calling  other  gods  by  their  names  (Ex. 
XXIII,  13),  warrants  the  assumption  that  this 
phase  of  development  had  already  been  reached  in 
pre-Sinaitic  times. 

As  divine  names  they  considered  in  those  days 
(even  as,  to  a  certain  extent,  also  in  later  times, 
talmudical  and  medieval)  all  attributes,  such  as 
"merciful,"  "gracious,"  and  the  like.  Nevertheless, 
certain  designations  of  the  divine  Being  differentiated 
early  as  names,  or,  still  better,  proper  names,  of  the 
one  God,  in  contradistinction  of  other  appellations 
which  were  understood  as  expressive  of  certain  divine 
qualities.  Of  these  names  two  stand  out  most 
prominently:  Elohim  (DVtf>K)  and  JHVH  (m.T). 
The  name  Elohim  which  goes  back  to  the  common 
Semitic  El  (i>K),  and  which  was  in  use  among  the 
Abrahamites  in  previous  periods,  was  gradually  re- 
placed by  the  name  of  JHVH  which  goes  back  to  the 
older  J  ah  (.T).  Gradually,  for  there  evidently  has 
been  a  time  in  which  the  national  proper  name  of 
God  with  the  Abrahamites  was  EHJH  (likewise  a 
1  Compare  Gen.  XXXII,  30,  31;  Jud.  VI,  22;  XIII,  17-8  with 
Ex.  XXIII,  20-21;  Josh.  XXIV,  19;  wherefrom  it  would 
seem  that  the  angel  in  Ex.  XXIII,  21  had  the  name  of 


iwp 


PRE-SINAITIC  PERIOD 


compound  with  Jah).  Traces  of  the  rivalry  between 
these  two  names  are  still  to  be  found  in  the  Bible 
(the  most  distinct  trace  in  Ex.  Ill,  13-15),  and  in  this 
rivalry  there  are  involved  certain  facts  the  discussion 
of  which  shall  permit  us  a  deeper  insight  into  the 
higher  phases  of  the  development  of  the  God-con- 
ception in  pre-Sinaitic  times: 

While  the  elimination  of  the  cosmological  interest 
meant  originally  a  lessening  of  the  speculative  element 
undoubtedly  present  in  Babylonian  literature,  it  was, 
on  the  other  hand,  just  the  deeper  ethical  conception 
of  a  divine  Being  exalted  above  all  human  passions 
that  has  been  leading  up  to  the  conception  of  a  divine 
Being  exalted  above  all  human  forms  of  appearance. 
Thus  the  desire  of  the  spiritual  leaders  of  the  people 
to  formulate  a  more  practical  God-conception,  a 
conception  of  the  divine  Being  that  involves  the 
postulate  of  a  better  life,  has  repelled  that  speculative 
element  which  was  in  no  immediate  relation  to  life, 
only  to  lay  more  stress  upon  that  speculative  element 
by  which  life  can  be  influenced  in  a  direct  and  decisive 
way.  As  a  first  step  in  this  direction  we  have  recog- 
nized the  one  from  the  ethical  concept  of  holiness  to 
the  eminently  metaphysical  speculative  concept  of 
the  intellectual  essence  of  God.  This  feature  con- 
cerned the  life  of  the  individual.  God  as  the  ideal  of 
holiness  was  undoubtedly  a  very  apt,  at  any  rate  the 
best  conceivable,  instrument  with  which  to  try  a 
reform  of  life  within  the  province  of  the  individual. 
But  if  this  instrument  was  to  be  made  effective,  it  had 
to  be  perfected  in  two  directions.  In  the  first  line 
the  old  doctrine  of  retribution  had  to  be  adapted  to  the 


10  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

new  God-conception,  and,  in  turn,  the  God-concep- 
tion had  to  be  completed  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
comprise  also  the  social  aspect  of  life,  the  relations 
between  man  and  man.  Quite  indifferent  to  the 
deeper  cosmological  questions,  the  oldest  representa- 
tives of  religious  literature  in  Israel  manifest  a  much 
more  open  mind  to  all  questions  affecting  the  ethical 
life.  In  their  way  of  treating  the  two  questions 
alluded  to,  they,  indeed,  show  a  deep  understanding 
of  the  fact  that  in  the  ultimate  analysis  there  is  one 
question  only,  that  of  the  divine  Justice.  Only  the 
belief  in  &  just  God  makes  it  imperative  upon  man  to 
be  just  toward  his  fellowman.  Again,  only  of  a  just 
God  can  man  expect  the  reward  due  to  him  for  the 
sacrifices  he  has  to  bear  in  shaping  his  own  life  and 
his  relationship  to  his  fellowman  according  to  the 
postulates  of  ethics.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  oldest 
literary  elements  still  traceable  show  beyond  a  doubt 
that  it  was  the  concept  of  divine  Justice  which 
engaged  all  the  speculation  of  the  thinking  men  in 
Israel's  hoary  past.  Of  course,  also  the  other  Semitic 
nations  knew  the  attribute  of  divine  justice  and  the 
doctrine  of  retribution.  But  there  were  all  kinds  of 
gods  with  conflicting  tendencies  whose  purposes  were 
crossing  and  double-crossing  each  other.  Injustice, 
too,  had  its  divine  representatives.  And  this  had  to 
be  so,  it  could  not  be  otherwise,  as  long  as  the  gods 
themselves  were  subject  to  human  passions,  differing 
from  man  only  in  that  their  passions  were  super- 
human, or  rather,  inhuman.  And  there  is  one  more 
important  feature.  The  Semitic  gods  could  not  be 
looked  upon  as  the  source  of  justice.     Were  they  not 


PRE-SINAITIC  PERIOD  11 

themselves  under  the  sway  of  Fatum,  just  as  men  were? 
There  also  were  fights  among  the  gods,  and  there  is 
only  one  just  party  to  a  fight.  Quite  different  under 
the  dominion  of  the  conception  of  a  unique  Being 
that  is  exalted  above  all  passions  and  possessed  of 
omnipotence  from  the  sway  of  which  there  is  no 
escape,  for  either  angel  or  man.  Then  the  idea  of 
justice  had  to  be  taken  up  in  all  seriousness.  The 
only  God  is  not  under  the  rule  of  a  Fatum,  and 
nothing  prevented  Him  from  ruling  the  world  in 
Justice. 

In  consequence  of  this  also  the  concept  of  Prophecy, 
common  to  all  Semitic  peoples,  underwent  a  deep- 
going  modification.  The  prophets  are  no  more  those 
witchcrafters  and  soothsayers  who  can  perform 
miracles  by  which  they  are  able  to  subdue  even  the 
gods,  and  who  know  the  means  by  which  to  shift  the 
figures  within  the  fatalistic  order  of  things.  The 
prophets  in  Israel  are  becoming  ever  more  and  more 
the  messengers  of  God  whose  function  it  is  to  teach 
men  to  try  to  be  as  good  as  God  is;  and  only  for  the 
purpose  of  enabling  them  to  perform  this  duty  God 
equips  them  with  the  power  to  do  wonders. 

The  further  development  along  these  lines  led  up 
to  a  stricter  conception  of  mans  personality,  of  ethical 
and  religions  responsibility.  Among  other  Semitic 
peoples  the  notion  of  responsibility  was  very  limited. 
Responsibility  in  its  ultimate  meaning  was  nothing 
but  the  helplessness  of  man  within  the  fatalistic 
order  of  things.  True,  the  gods  also  were  subject 
to  Fatum,  but  by  virtue  of  their  better  knowledge  of 
the  magical  means  and  their  greater  power  to  bring 


12  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

them  into  play,  they  were  not  as  helplessly  lost  as 
man  was.  In  the  following  we  will  see  that  the  con- 
ception of  prophecy  and  free  will  were  going  through 
a  certain  development  even  in  later  times.  But  as 
compared  with  the  Babylonian  and  common  Semitic 
notions  of  these  beliefs  we  may  well  say  that  these 
concepts,  as  cherished  by  Israel's  ancestors,  display 
a  certain  amount  of  ethical  maturity  and  logical 
consistency. 

In  its  first  stages  this  speculation  has  led  to  the 
concept  of  a  God  of  the  most  rigid  justice,  to  the 
"El  Kanna"  (wp  ^K),  the  "God  of  Vengeance," 
the  "Consuming  Fire."  "The  holy  Elohim,  the 
zealous  God"  (Joshua  XXIV,  19),  corresponds  to  this 
phase  of  development  in  the  pre-Sinaitic  God-con- 
ception. But  the  reaction  was  bound  to  come  before 
long.  The  concept  of  Grace,  in  vogue  among  the 
Semitic  gods,  the  arbitrary  grace,  could  not  be  har- 
monized with  the  new  God-conception.  On  the 
other  hand,  a  God  that  knows  no  mercy,  had  no 
prospect  of  endearing  himself  to  the  hearts  of  the 
people.  And  then,  too:  A  God  with  no  grace  and 
no  mercy  would  educate  man  also  to  be  hard  and 
cruel.  The  Semitic  peoples  believed  in  certain  gods 
that  defend  the  cause  of  the  weak  and  the  poor.  A 
certain  part  of  the  crops  of  field  and  flock  was  tabooed, 
reserved  by  some  god  for  the  priest  and  the  poor. 
But  under  the  dominion  of  one  Being  in  the  exclusive 
possession  of  all  names  and  attributes,  the  weak  and 
the  poor  could  have  no  protection  whatsoever  unless 
that  only  Being  is  equipped  with  the  pertaining 
attributes.     And  also  the  people  in  its  entirety  which 


PRE-SINAITIC  PERIOD  13 

was  believing  in  its  being  a  chosen  nation  destined 
to  a  great  future,  must  have  felt  that  rigid  justice 
with  no  mercy  imperiled  the  realization  of  this 
future. 

It  is  to  this  period  that  we  have  to  look  for  the 
first  efforts  of  the  thinkers  and  writers  to  designate 
God  by  the  attributes  of  ''merciful,"  "gracious," 
and  the  like.  Further  reflection  on  this  question, 
notably  the  endeavour  to  remove  the  evidently 
conflicting  conceptions  of  the  "gracious  and  com- 
passionate God"  and  the  "zealous  God,"  was 
gradually  leading  up  to  attempts  of  uniting  these 
attributes  in  one  formula  by  way  of  compromise. 
These  were  the  first  efforts  toward  a  definition  of  the 
ethical  God-conception.  In  its  most  complete  form  we 
have  the  ethical  definition  of  God  in  the  Bible  in  the 
formula  of  the  Thirteen  Attributes  (Ex.  XXXIV,  6-7), 
but  this  formula,  being  the  product  of  a  later  period, 
was  the  result  of  preceding  formulas  of  the  same 
kind,  less  expressive  and  less  known.  This  was 
bound  to  lead  up  to  an  endeavour  to  coin  a  new 
Name  for  God.  The  zealous  God  of  rigid  justice 
had  been  known  by  the  name  oiElohim,  but  how  were 
they  to  designate  their  God -conception  by  one  word, 
by  a  name  which  would  stand  as  a  sign  for  the  attri- 
butes united  in  the  compromise  formula?  And  then, 
too,  there  was  a  national  aspect  to  the  question. 
Elohim  was  common-Semitic,  but  the  God-conception 
of  future  Israel  had  already  been  so  much  of  a  new 
coinage  that  it  was  also  urging  for  a  new  name  of 
national  coinage.  For  a  time  this  function  was  filled 
by  the  name  of  EHJH  (iTflK).      But  it  seems  that 


14  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

this  phase  of  the  development  coincides  with  that 
period  in  which  the  reaction  against  the  God  of 
rigid  justice  was  still  so  strong  that  the  element  of 
arbitrary  mercy  at  the  expense  of  justice  was  prevailing 
in  the  attempted  definitions  of  God.  For  this 
probably  is  the  meaning  of  EHJH.  As  long  as  the 
God-conception  of  rigid  justice  was  dominating, 
the  belief  was  spread  that  the  presence  of  Elohim 
spelled  great  danger,  a  belief  that  made  the  inter- 
mediation of  angels  necessary.  The  latter,  too,  were 
rigid  enough,  yet  their  intermediation  meant  mitiga- 
tion of  rigid  justice.  Then,  with  the  rising  of  the 
conception  of  the  God  of  mercy,  the  opposite  con- 
ception developed:  The  presence  of  God  mean4-  great, 
unlimited,  or,  at  least,  but  little  limited,  mercy. 
Accordingly,  they  formed  the  name  of  EHJH — 
"I  will  be  (with  thee)."  But  while  the  names 
Elohim  and  EHJH,  the  God-conception  of  rigid 
justice  and  that  of  absolute  mercy,  or  at  least  of  far- 
reaching  mercy,  were  rivaling  each  other,  certain  efforts 
came  to  the  fore  which  tried  to  define  God  as  a  Being 
which  rules  with  rigid  justice,  at  the  same  time,  how- 
ever, bringing,  also,  mercy  into  play,  according  to 
certain  principles.  And  the  promoters  of  this  new  com- 
promise God-idea,  they,  too,  covered  their  new  God- 
conception  with  a  new  name:  JHVH.  The  traces 
which  the  name  EHJH  left  in  the  Bible,  clearly  indi- 
cate that  the  name  JHVH  had  to  go  through  a  con- 
test wi^h  its  older  rival,  one  not  at  all  too  easy,  but 
from  which  JHVH  came  out  victorious. 

Insignificant    as    the    question    of    names    may 
appear  to  us  today,  the  conception  of  a  Being  that 


PRE-SINAITIC  PERIOD  15 

regards  rigid  justice,  which,  however,  at  the  same 
time  dispenses  mercy  according  to  definite  rules, 
would  never  have  developed  that  great  power  which 
it  has  been  called  upon  to  exercise,  were  it  not  for 
the  new  name  that  became  the  bearer  of  that  new 
conception.  And  this  is  especially  true  as  regards 
the  national  consolidation  of  the  people.  The  new 
name  won  the  hearts  of  many  prominent  individuals 
and  their  groups  for  the  new  God-conception,  and  led 
up  to  the  forming  of  a  certain  unity  of  national  con- 
sciousness on  the  basis  of  a  Covenant  between  this 
national  unity  and  the  God  of  Justice  and  Mercy. 

This  was  a  task  not  easy  of  accomplishing,  as  it 
is  also  evident  that  it  took  a  development  of  cen- 
turies to  accomplish  it.  The  postulates  of  the  new 
God-conception,  in  each  and  every  phase  of  its 
development,  called  for  a  thorough  reform  of  the  entire 
system  of  life,  in  all  of  its  private  and  public  mani- 
festations, in  religion,  culture,  art  and  custom. 
The  attempt  to  oust  the  sexual  stories  about  the  gods, 
so  dear  to  the  people,  as,  for  that  matter,  the  entire 
ancient  Semitic  conception  of  the  essence  of  the 
gods,  by  the  new  conception  of  the  holy,  just,  or  just 
and  merciful,  God,  was  a  task  almost  hopeless  on  its 
own  account,  but  much  the  more  so  on  account  of  the 
practical  postulates  involved:  The  making  and 
worshipping  of  images  to  be  forbidden;  the  worship 
to  be  deprived  of  all  that  lends  to  it  the  character  of 
mysterious  exaltation;  to  be  mindful  of  rigid  purity 
of  the  family;  to  forego  the  exercise  of  might  for  the 
sake  of  right;  moreover,  to  mind  the  weal  of  the 
weak  and   the  needy   far  beyond  all   postulates  of 


16  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

right  —  these  were  postulates  so  new  and  so  radical 
that  it  required  hundreds  of  years  before  even  a  small 
fraction  of  the  people  was  ripe  for  them.  However, 
the  power  of  the  new  ideas  was  great;  the  prophets 
of  JHVH  were  indefatigable;  th^  small  band  was 
becoming  ever  larger,  it  kept  on  growing  in  numbers 
and  in  spiritual  power.  And  at  the  time  when  that 
phase  of  development  had  been  reached  in  which  the 
name  JHVH  made  its  appearance  as  the  emblem 
of  the  national  flag — at  that  time  that  small  band 
of  enthusiasts,  in  the  midst  of  a  people  which  in  its 
great  masses  was  as  yet  unripe  for  the  covenant 
with  JHVH,  felt  strong  enough  to  venture  the  great 
step  of  proclaiming  the  Covenant  at  Sinai. 


Second  Chapter 

FROM   THE   COVENANT  AT  SINAI   TO  THE 
DEUTERONOMIC  COVENANT  (621  a.) 

CERTAIN  indications  in   Bible  and  Talmud,  as 
also  in  the  documents  brought  to  light  by  the 
excavations    of    the    last    decades,    irresistibly    cor- 
roborate  the   suggestion   hinted   at   above   that   the 
Abrahamites,    in    the   course   of   the   struggles   con- 
comitant to  the  invasion  of  Palestine,  entered  rela- 
tions of   political   alliance   and   spiritual   as  well   as 
bodily  assimilation  with  certain  autochthonic  tribes. 
The  passive  resistance  of  the  people  against  the 
doctrines  and   ordinances  of  the  Sinaitic   Covenant 
and  their  realization  in  life  was  now  strengthened 
by  the  new  active  influences   of    the    new    Semitic 
environment,  and  most  especially  by  the  influences 
of    those    autochthonic    elements    with    which    the 
Abrahamites  came  into  close  contact,  and,  by  and 
by,  were  assimilated  into  a  loose  political  and  re- 
ligious  community.     And   the   more   they   gave   up 
their  previous  nomadic  freedom  in  their  efforts  toward 
gaining   permanent   settlements,    the   stronger   grew 
the  influence  exerted  by  the  now  permanent  environ- 
ments   and    intimate    contacts.      And     difficult     as 
it  may  be  to  have  it  ever  made  out  with  any  degree  of 
certainty,   there  seems  to  be  much  justification  for 
the  conclusion  that  the  original  Abrahamitic  element 
was  predominating  in  the  South,  while  the  Israelitic 
element    was    predominating    in    the    North.     And 
whatever   the   truth   may   be   about   the   traditional 


18  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

story  of  the  original  unity  of  North  and  South  and 
their  later  separation,  for  our  purpose,  that  of  clearing 
up  the  outlines  of  the  spiritual  development,  it  is 
sufficient  to  refer  to  the  fact  contradicted  by  none, 
that  between  North  and  South  there  were  contentions 
not  only  of  a  political,  but  also  of  a  religious  nature. 
Indeed,  it  is  but  natural  that  the  Israelitic  element 
of  the  North  had  historic-mythological  traditions 
and  religious-cultural  ideals  of  so  definite  a  character 
that  they  were  well  liable  to  retard  even  more  the 
reform  movement  started  with  the  Sinaitic  Covenant. 
Reading  the  historical  books  of  the  Bible,  especially 
the  book  of  Judges,  with  due  attention,  one  can 
hardly  resist  the  definite  impression  that  certain 
narrations  were  originally  independent  conceptions 
of  early  national  history,  developed  in  different 
centers  of  the  Northern  tribes,  and  but  later  cor- 
sespondingly  modified  and  fitted  into  the  frame  of 
pragmatic  history.  The  fact  that  there  was  a  back- 
sliding after  the  Sinaitic  Covenant  is  expressed  by 
tradition  in  the  narrative  of  the  molten  image  (PDDO) 
the  Israelites  are  said  to  have  made  after  the  Sinaitic 
Covenant.  Likewise  our  suggestion  that  backslid- 
ing and  retardation  in  the  monotheistic  development 
are  to  be  charged,  in  part  at  least,  to  the  Northern 
tribes,  appears  strengthened  by  the  later  Judean 
interpretation  that  the  molten  image  in  that  tradition 
was  a  golden  calf,  thus  the  political  and  religious 
national  emblem  of  the  Northern  Kingdom.  The 
literary  documents  of  biblical  times  came  down  to 
us  in  a  very  composite  shape,  the  various  conflicting 
elements  and  influences  being  molten  together  in  a 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  19 

fashion  often  so  organic  that  a  complete  analysis  into 
their  original  constituent  elements  is  a  task  almost 
impossible  of  accomplishing.  Moreover,  in  the  course 
of  the  development  there  have  taken  place  certain 
crossings  of  conflicting  traditions  and  ideas  which 
variously  caused  an  alteration,  and  oft-times  nearly 
a  reversion  of  the  standpoints  of  the  conflicting 
groups,  at  least  in  particulars.  Nevertheless,  in 
spite  of  all  this  uncertainty  in  particulars,  there  is 
one  fact  that  is  established  beyond  all  doubt.  The 
D enter onomic  Covenant  was  carried  out  in  Judea, 
and,  notably,  after  the  destruction  of  the  Northern 
Kingdom,  at  a  time  when  the  latter  was  dependent 
on  Judea  in  all  matters  religious,  and  after  all  pre- 
ceding attempts  at  reform  while  the  Northern  King- 
dom was  still  in  existence,  had  proved  futile.  Thus 
it  shall  be  well  possible  to  refer  now  and  then  to  the 
bearing  of  the  conflicts  between  North  and  South 
upon  the  course  of  the  spiritual  development  in  the 
period  enclosed  by  the  first  two  Covenants : 

There  is  one  pivotal  point  from  which  all  phases 
of  the  development  under  discussion  can  be  explored 
and  gotten  full  sight  of.  I  refer  to  the  question  of 
angels. 

Let  us  compare  the  Admonition  (nnain)  contained 
in  those  concluding  verses  of  the  first  Book  of  the 
Covenant  which  stamp  it  as  the  Deed  of  the  Covenant, 
with  the  parallel  section  in  the  Deuteronomic  Book 
of  the  Covenant,  chapter  XXVIII:  At  once  we 
become  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  Angel,  the  very 
bearer  of  the  Covenant  in  the  first  Book  of  the 
Covenant,    is    entirely    missing    in    the    concluding 


20  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Admonition  of  the  Deuteronomic  Book  of  the  Cove- 
nant. Continuing  to  orient  ourselves  in  this  direc- 
tion, we  soon  find  that  in  the  entire  Book  of  Deuter- 
onomy (inclusive  of  the  later  additions)  the  existence 
of  angels  is  not  only  never  asserted  but  rather  ex- 
pressly denied.  This  is  especially  evident  from  one 
passage  in  Deuteronomy,  VII,  1-5,  when  compared 
with  its  parallel  in  the  first  Book  of  the  Covenant, 
Ex.  XXIII,  20-32.  All  that  is  being  said  in  the 
latter  passage  of  the  Angel  as  Mediator,  the  former 
says  of  God  Himself.  At  once  it  becomes  evident 
that  we  face  here  a  deepgoing,  portenteous  dogmatical 
controversy. 

A  thorough  study  of  the  history  of  that  period, 
as  its  literary  echo  resounds  in  the  Bible,  conveys  to 
us  the  suggestion  that  this  controversy  formed  the 
center  of  all  that  movement  which  found  its  temporary 
conclusion  by  the  Deuteronomic  Reform,  and  also 
that  the  entire  spiritual  development  of  that  period 
was  going  on  under  the  influence  of  this  controversy 
which  started  asserting  itself  very  early  and  was 
keeping  on  increasing  with  the  advance  of  time. 
The  phenomena  referred  to  here  are  variously  over- 
lapping into  each  other's  sphere  in  a  very  complicated 
manner;  it  is,  nevertheless,  well  possible  to  analyse 
the  problem  of  the  development  in  its  totality  into 
four  component  problems,  the  separate  discussion  of 
which  will  make  the  presentation  more  transparent. 
These  four  component  problems  are: 

1.  The  Conception  of  Early  History. 

2.  God-conception  and  Divine  Names. 

3.  The  General  Dogmatical  Development. 

4.  The  Religious-Cultural  Life. 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  21 

1.     The  Conception  of  Early  History 

Considering  the  fact  that  the  narrations  in  the 
sources  E  and  J  are  so  intimately  bound  up  with 
theophanies  and  angels,  it  becomes  evident  that  the 
effort  to  overcome  the  sexual  motive  in  the  sphere  of 
the  divine  was  greatly  furthered  by  the  opposition  to 
the  doctrine  of  angels.  And  since  the  opposition  to 
the  angels  developed  chiefly  in  Judea,  as  we  will  soon 
see,  it  would  be  easy  to  show  that  as  far  as  the  process 
of  purification  is  concerned,  the  Israelitish  conceptions 
of  early  history  remained  far  behind  those  of  Judea. 
If  we  compare  some  of  the  narratives  in  the  Book  of 
Judges  with  those  of  Genesis,  we  soon  shall  find  that 
narratives  which  came  down  to  us  in  a  shape  nearer 
the  original  Israelitish  conception,  have  achieved  but  a 
lesser  degree  of  purification  than  those  which  had 
gone  through  a  decisive  Judean  influence,  as  for 
instance  those  in  the  book  of  Genesis.  And  among 
the  latter,  too,  various  deg-ees  of  purification  are 
perceptible  in  their  various  parts.  And  in  these  also 
the  less  purified  motives  could  be  traced  to  an  Israel- 
itish origin,  though  not  always  with  sufficient  certainty. 
In  general  it  may  well  be  said  that  the  Judean  source 
(which  is  the  younger  one),  the  Jahvist  (J),  presents 
the  higher  degree  of  the  development.  At  times, 
however,  it  happens  that  a  report  in  the  Elohistic 
source  (E,  which  is  the  older  one),  would  appear  more 
purified  than  its  parallel  in  the  Jahvistic  source  (cf. 
to  this  whole  question  Gesch.  d.  jued.  Philos,  II.  1,  at 
the  beginning  of  the  second  chapter,  and  my  essay: 
The  monotheistic  redaction  of  the  national  mythology, 
in    the    Hebrew    monthly    "Hatoren,"    New    York, 


22  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

1913-1914).  But  these  details  shall  not  be  discussed 
here.  For  our  purpose  here  it  will  be  sufficient  to 
present  the  results  of  the  whole  development  at  the 
time  of  its  completion  at  the  end  of  this  period,  results 
that  testify  best  to  the  driving  force  of  the  preceding 
development : 

When  after  many  backslidings  and  religious  aberra- 
tions the  prophets  had  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
position  of  the  angels  in  the  religion  of  Israel  was 
decidedly  obstructing  the  much-desired  purification 
of  the  God -conception  and  its  penetrating  into  the 
rank  and  file  of  the  people,  they  could  not  escape  the 
further  conclusion  that  it  was  necessary  to  remove 
everything  reminding  of  the  authoritative  sanction  of 
that  doctrine.  And  so  when  it  came  to  the  redaction 
of  the  Deuteronomic  Book  of  the  Covenant,  they 
ventured  a  thorough  revision  of  the  early  history. 
For,  apart  from  the  fact  that  angels  occupy  a  promi- 
nent place  even  in  the  purified  narratives  of  the  early 
history,  the  rigid  monotheistic  reform  party  must 
have  taken  offence  at  the  ill-concealed  remainders  of 
the  old  legends.  And  of  such  ill-concealed  remainders 
there  were  a  good  many  not  only  in  the  older,  but  also 
in  the  later  versions  of  the  tribal  history,  such  as  E 
and  J,  and  some  of  them  are  still  perceptible  in  the 
combination  of  both,  JE.  In  addition  to  this,  appre- 
hension was  growing  on  account  of  the  sexual  motives 
in  vogue  in  the  religious  practices  of  the  people  in 
closely  pre-Deuteronomic  times.  So  it  had  become 
imperative  to  remove  not  only  the  first  Book  of  the 
Covenant  from  its  authoritative  position,  but  also  the 
book  of  JE,  which    was  enjoying  a  certain  degree  of 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMIC  23 

authority  with  the  people.  This  end  they  hoped  to 
achieve  by  attaching  to  the  new  Book  of  the  Covenant, 
even  the  Deuteronomy,  a  new  version  of  the  national 
history  as  an  introduction.  In  conceiving  this  official 
version  of  the  national  history  they  proceeded  in  a 
manner  which  was  as  radical  as  it  was  simple.  Instead 
of  going  into  the  troublesome  task  of  refashioning  the 
early  national  history,  they  simply  cut  it  off:  They 
started  the  history  with  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  thus 
deliberately  giving  up  all  of  the  interesting  early 
history.  Taking  into  account  the  original  book  of 
Deuteronomy  (V-XXVI  and  XXVIII)  only,  the 
three  names  of  the  patriarchs,  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob,  are  the  only  trace  of  the  early  history  by  means 
of  which  they  tried  to  cover  the  infinite  pre-historic 
vacuum.  And  even  these  three  names  are  preferably 
replaced  by  the  general  designation  "Your  Ancestors" 
(DSTQN).  For,  possibly,  even  these  names  were 
better  avoided,  reminiscent  as  they  were  of  the  time 
when  they  still  were  names  of  gods  (cf.  Is.  LXIII,  16). 
To  alter  the  name  of  the  people  "Israel"  was  not 
feasible,  from  the  traditional  point  of  view,  inasmuch 
as  according  to  this  tradition  Israel  was  originally 
one  people;  but  the  name  "Israel"  as  that  of  the  patri- 
arch Jacob  is  completely  avoided.  They  did  not  like 
to  be  reminded  of  the  change  of  name  brought  about 
by  an  angel.  Moreover,  even  the  last  vestige  of  the 
number  twelve  as  that  of  the  tribes  of  Jacob,  and  thus 
a  very  important  astral  motif,  was  to  disappear  entirely 
from  the  national  history.  But  most  decisive  is  the 
fact  that  all  woman  figures,  with  all  the  stories  attached 
to  their  names,  have  disappeared  entirely  from  the 


24  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

official  version  of  the  national  history  as  outlined  in 
Deuteronomy  (including  the  later  additions) .  The  only 
woman  whose  name  occurs  in  Deuteronomy,  Miriam 
(XXIV,  9),  is  mentioned  only  in  the  part  she  played 
"on  the  road  after  thou  hadst  left  Egypt,"  to  empha- 
size the  supreme  position  of  Moses  as  a  prophet. 
Besides,  this  passage  is  most  likely  a  later  interpola- 
tion, as  may  be  concluded  from  the  fact  that  the 
entire  incident  of  marriage  and  children  in  the  life  of 
Moses  appears  to  be  advisedly  suppressed  in  the  book 
of  Deuteronomy.  According  to  this  book  (as  also 
according  to  the  Priestly  Code)  we  have  to  under- 
stand that  Moses  remained  single  all  his  life.  The 
Talmudists,  feeling  this  situation,  harmonized  this 
with  the  contradictory  reports  in  other  portions  of  the 
Torah  by  the  interpretation  that  as  a  preparatory 
step  to  the  Covenant  at  Sinai  Moses  separated 
himself  from  his  wife  for  ever  (cf.  Deut.  IX,  14;  Ex. 
XXXII,  10). 

This  radical  step  taken  by  the  redactors  of  Deuteron- 
omy can  be  explained  by  the  conditions  of  that  time : 

The  political  dependence  of  Judea  on  Assyria- 
Babylonia  and,  in  consequence  thereof,  the  imitation 
of  the  conquerers  in  cult  and  ritual  started  already 
under  the  reign  of  Ahaz  (II  Kings  XVI,  8),  even 
though  for  the  first  the  relation  was  a  half-way 
friendly  one.  The  Reform  of  Hezekiah  had  been 
delayed  and,  eventually,  marred.  Then  came  the 
rather  covered  dependence  of  Hezekiah  on  the 
Babylonian  empire,  (ibid.  XX,  12f.).  No  doubt 
the  Reformer  Hezekiah  was  watchfully  counteracting 
the  Babylonian  influences  in  cult  and  ritual.  None- 
theless, the  relation  to  Babylonia  started  by  him,  not 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  25 

of  his  seeking,  in  spite  of  his  wishes,  is,  to  a  certain 
extent,  to  be  considered  as  preparatory  to  the  back- 
sliding under  the  reign  of  Menasseh  whose  dependence 
on  the  Neobabylonian  empire  certainly  contributed 
greatly  to  those  motives  which  made  him  reform  the 
cult  and  ritual  back  to  Babylonian  standards  or  to 
their  imitations  among  Western  Semitic  peoples 
(ibid.  XXI;  2  Chr.  XXXIII).  Thus  the  time 
preceding  the  Reform  of  Josiah  was  one  of  deep 
religious  deterioration.  Politically  and  religiously 
the  people  was  laboring  under  the  destructive  influence 
of  Babylonia.  If,  therefore,  the  speakers  of  the 
people  in  their  defense  of  the  cult  of  the  "Queen  of 
the  Heavens"  against  Jeremiah  refer  to  previous 
times  when  this  cult,  according  to  Jeremiah's  own 
completing  and  confirming  report,  was  practised  by 
the  kings,  the  nobles  and  the  people,  they  certainly 
mean  at  least  also  the  time  closely  preceding  the 
Deuteronomic  Covenant  (Jer.  XLIV,  16f.;cf.  VII,  18). 
These  conditions  hardly  improved  in  the  first  eighteen 
years  of  the  reign  of  Josiah,  the  time  in  the  first  half 
of  which  the  spiritual  leaders  of  the  people  were 
working  towards  the  aim  of  persuading  and  inspiring 
the  young  king  to  carry  out  their  plans  of  a  great 
Reformation.  It  is  those  times  into  which  we  have 
to  project  the  flourishing  Ishtar  cult  "in  the  cities  of 
Judah  and  in  the  streets  of  Jerusalem." 

Confronting  this  situation,  the  leaders  of  the 
Reform  Movement  evidently  deemed  it  best  to  oust 
all  that  literature  in  which  certain,  even  though 
attenuated,  sexual  motifs  were  dominating,  liable 
to  further  the  very  Ishtar-cult  which  they  tried  to 


26  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

suppress.  And  this  situation  accounts  also  for  the 
little  success  of  this  radical  step.  This  Reform  may 
have,  indeed,  has,  succeeded  in  ousting  some  offensive 
elements  entirely  and  in  attenuating  others,  but  it 
never  succeeded  in  the  attempt  to  oust  entirely  the 
stories  of  the  early  history.  It  was  easier  to  thwart 
the  first  Book  of  the  Covenant  from  its  authoritative 
position  than  to  dispute  the  narrating  literature  its 
semi-authoritative  pedestal.  And,  indeed,  the  con- 
ception of  the  early  history  continues  to  develop  in 
the  next  period. 

2.    God-Conception  and  Divine  Names. 

In  the  Torah  in  its  present  form  the  most  complete 
definition  of  God  in  pre-Deuteronomic  times  (the 
Formula  of  Thirteen)  occurs  in  the  Elohistic  source 
(E).  True,  it  is  very  likely,  nay  almost  sure,  that 
this  formula  had  been  developed  and  consummated 
in  Judea,  as  it  is  also  sure,  that  it  was  contained  in 
the  original  Jahvistic  source  (J,  before  it  was  combined 
with  E).  But  since  of  the  two  sources  E  is  evidently 
the  older  one,  it  recommends  itself  to  start  the 
presentation  of  the  development  of  the  God-concep- 
tion by  considering  the  source  E  first.  The  more  so 
since  E  is  evidently  nothing  else  but  the  Israelitish 
version  of  the  pre-Sinaitic  (Judean)  development, 
thus  reflecting  the  development  in  its  totality  to  a 
certain  extent  more  faithfully  than  does  J  in  which 
the  Israelitish  influence  touches  upon  rather  subordi- 
nate points  (cf.  to  all  questions  treated  in  the  following 
my  Geschichte  d.  jued.  Philosophic  II.  chap.  2): 
The  motif  of  attributes  in  E  is,  in  its  artistic- 
literary  aspects  as  well  as  in  its  substance,  of  such  a 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  27 

high  finish,  that  it  becomes  clear  at  once  that  we  have 
before  us  a  product  of  a  long  development.  Under 
the  guidance  of  this  motif,  emulated  and  developed 
to  a  still  higher  degree  of  perfection  by  later  writers, 
the  biblical  historians  would  conceive  their  presenta- 
tions of  early  History  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  the 
very  development  of  the  God-conception  .  mirror 
itself  in  the  course  of  events,  a  feature  especially 
emphasized  by  the  use  of  different  divine  names  for 
different  periods  of  History.  And  also  writers  of 
later  periods  of  history  use  the  artistic  motif  of  different 
divine  names  in  order  to  emphasize  the  importance  of 
certain  events,  and  to  characterize  various  times  and 
personalities.  Prophets,  too,  use  this  motif  in  their 
visions,  sermons,  admonitions  and  promises.  Every- 
thing is  in  connection  with  the  God-conception, 
everything  is  carried  by  it.  This  holds  true  not  only 
of  the  conception  of  history,  dogmatic  doctrines, 
admonitions  and  promises,  but  also  of  practical 
legislation.  It,  too,  is  in  intrinsic  contact  with  the 
God-conception.  All  this  will  be  confirmed  by  our 
presentation,  which  we  now  start  with  an  outline  of 
E's  God-conception  as  mirrored  in  the  early  national 
history. 

The  Elohistic  source  sets  in  with  Genesis  chapter 
XV.  In  the  report  of  creation  there  is  no  element 
reminding  of  this  source,  nor  is  there  to  be  found 
anything  in  this  source  that  would  suggest  any 
interest  of  the  writer  in  cosmological  questions.  The 
development  of  early  history  as  presented  by  this 
writer  is  one  of  the  pure  ethical  God-conception.  To 
him  History  begins  with  Abraham..  God  reveals 
Himself  to  the  patriarchs  through  the  intermediation 


28  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

of  angels  (and  we  evidently  are  to  understand  that 
all  revelations  took  place  through  angels  even  where 
it  is  not  stated  so  expressly — this  probably  having 
been  the  case  in  older  versions).  The  patriarchs  knew 
the  God  of  rigid  justice  only,  by  the  name  of  Elohim. 
Accordingly,  not  only  all  persons  mentioned  in  the 
narrative,  but  even  the  author  himself,  in  presenting 
that  early  period,  uses  the  name  of  Elohim  to  the 
exclusion  of  all  other  names.  This,  the  writer 
confining  himself  to  the  use  of  that  divine  name  in  the 
presentation  of  a  given  period  which  according  to  his 
conception  of  history  was  the  dominating  attribute  of 
that  period,  is  an  artistic  literary  device  which  various- 
ly found  imitation  by  later  writers.  In  E's  concep- 
tion of  history  God  was  ruling  the  world  originally 
according  to  the  demands  of  rigid  justice,  an  attribute 
covered  by  the  name  of  Elohim.  The  sin  of  the 
brothers  against  Joseph  appears  retaliated  by  the 
oppression  of  Israel  in  Egypt.  It  was  but  after  God 
had  decreed  to  redeem  Israel,  that  the  change  started 
by  God  revealing  Himself  to  Moses  under  the  name  of 
EHJH,  and  giving  him  a  sign  of  Mercy.  And  it  was 
only  after  the  Israelites  had  made  the  Massecha 
(cf.  above  and  in  the  following),  that  Moses  prayed  to 
God  for  a  revelation  of  His  "ways",  or  attributes,  and 
that,  in  answer  to  that  prayer,  God  revealed  to  him 
the  name  of  JHVH  and  the  Formula  of  Thirteen  as 
the  ideogram  of  which  that  name  stands.  And  this 
occurs  on  the  Mount  of  Sinai,  out  from  the  Cloud 
(Ex.  XXXIV,  5-7): 

"And    JHVH    passed    by    him,    and    exclaimed: 
JHVH!  JHVH  is  God,  merciful  and   compassionate, 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  29 

long-suffering,  rich  in  Grace  and  Loving-Kindness. 
Remembering  merit  unto  the  thousandth  generation, 
forgiving  Sin,  Misdeed  and  Erring,  but  never  blotting 
out  (sin)  entirely,  (rather)  visiting  the  sins  of  the 
fathers  upon  their  children  and  children's  children 
unto  the  third  and  fourth  generations!" 

There  upon  Moses  prays  that  JHVH  Himself, 
not  the  angel,  may  walk  before  the  Israelites.  But, 
in  the  conception  of  E,  this  prayer  is  not  granted. 
After  the  introduction  of  the  name  JHVH,  E  uses 
this  name  exclusively  (with  but  two  exceptions  easily 
accounted  for). 

The  Jahvistic  source  (J),  too,  sets  out  with  the 
patriarch  Abraham.  After  a  few  short  notes  on 
Abraham's  family,  (Gen.  ch.  XI,  conclusion),  this 
writer  utilizes,  right  in  the  first  divine  revelation  to 
Abraham,  certain  elements  which  we  shall  recognize 
later  on  as  the  primitive  elements  of  a  formula  of 
attributes  parallel  to  the  Formula  of  Thirteen  (comp. 
Gen.  XII,  2,  with  Num.  VI,  24-27).  Accordingly,  it 
is  already  this  first  representative  of  monotheism, 
Abraham,  who  is  made  acquainted  with  the  name 
JHVH  used  so  far  only  by  the  writer  himself  (who, 
then,  did  not  care  for  the  artistic  device  of  using  the 
divine  name  corresponding  to  the  period  under  con- 
sideration). Of  course,  in  accordance  with  the 
scheme  outlined  above,  this  revelation  does  not 
occur  without  preparatory  steps.  Abraham  builds 
one  altar  at  Sichem,  then  one  at  Bethel,  and  right 
here  he  is  distinguished  by  the  revelation  of  the 
great  name  (Gen.  XV,  2-8).  Then  the  Covenant  is 
entered  into  on  the  ground  of  the  Formula  of  Attri- 


30  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

butes  (XV,  13-f.).  After  the  backsliding  at  Sinai 
there  is  an  appeal  to  these  Attributes  of  Mercy,  the 
result  being  the  elimination  of  the  angel  as  inter- 
mediator (thus  differing  from  E  in  this  point). 

As  in  other  questions,  such  as  the  distinction 
attached  to  certain  places  in  the  lives  of  the  patri- 
archs and  the  like,  we  notice  also  regarding  the  ques- 
tion of  who  was  distinguished  by  the  first  revelation 
of  the  name  JHVH  a  certain  rivalry  between  the 
respective  conceptions  in  Israel  and  Juda.  Of  course, 
in  the  conception  of  E,  too,  the  patriarchs  are  founders 
of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  Israel  one  of  the  patriarchs, 
the  grandson  of  Abraham.  But  we  can  understand 
his  aversion  to  the  idea  of  the  God-conception  having 
reached  its  highest  stage  of  development  by  the 
patriarch  Abraham.  His  desire  was  rather  to 
indicate  through  his  conception  of  this  development 
that  also  the  elements  that  entered  but  later  into  the 
body  of  the  nation,  contributed  some  valuable 
features  to  the  Jewish  God-conception.  Consciously 
or  unconsciously,  the  general  tendency  in  Israel  was 
to  emphasize  the  gradual  development  of  the  Jewish 
God-conception.  In  the  Judean  conception  Abraham 
signifies  at  once  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the 
development  of  the  God-conception.  The  great 
name,  JHVH,  and,  consequently,  also  the  Formula 
of  Thirteen,  has  already  been  revealed  to  Abraham. 
The  Elohist,  on  the  other  hand,  replaces  Abraham  by 
Moses,  a  feature  that  conveys  the  suggestion  that 
the  beginnings  of  the  relationship  between  Israel  and 
Juda  go  back  to  the  time  of  the  Sinaitic  Covenant. 
Another  feature  that  seems  to  have  entered  the  motif 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  31 

of  development  in  E,  is  the  desire  to  give  some  ex- 
pression to  those  general  Semitic  tendencies  which 
were  present  in  Israel  to  a  greater  extent  than  in 
Juda.  Also  E  wishes  to  represent  the  final  God- 
conception,  JHVH,  as  the  ultimately  only  one,  but 
on  account  of  stricter  adherence  in  Israel  to  the  idea 
of  angels  as  intermediators,  this,  rather  official, 
writer,  notwithstanding  his  being  inspired  by  pro- 
phetic ideas,  may  have  intended  to  protect  the  name 
Elohim  which,  by  its  plural  form,  is  reminding  of 
the  angels,  from  being  ousted  entirely.  In  Juda,  on 
the  other  hand,  there  seems  to  have  been  a  prevailing 
tendency,  concomitant  to  the  growing  opposition  to 
the  doctrine  of  angels,  to  oust  the  name  Elohim 
entirely  from  the  authoritative  national  document. 
And,  finally,  it  is  well  possible  that  the  difference  in 
the  use  of  divine  names  is  further  indicating  that  in 
the  Formula  of  Mercy  in  J  there  was  a  wider  range 
for  the  play  of  mercy  than  in  E's  formula  of  Thirteen. 
The  far -going  postulates  of  mercy  in  J's  story  of 
Sodom  (Gen.  XVIII-XIX;  omitted  by  E)  may  point 
in  this  direction,  as  also  the  above  mentioned  ex- 
ceptional use  of  the  name  Elohim  in  the  case  of  non- 
Israelites  and  of  sinners  by  E.  The  attribute  of 
rigid  justice,  as  indicated  by  the  name  Elohim,  has 
not  been  abrogated  altogether. 

And  there  is  another  fact  which  points  to  the 
existence  of  the  tendency  in  Juda  to  bar  the  name 
Elohim  entirely  from  being  used  as  the  proper  name 
of  God:  Elohim  is  not  used  as  the  proper  name  of 
God  in  any  Judean  source  provably  younger  than  the 
J-source.     Those  in  the  books  of  Joshua,  Judges,  and 


32  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Samuel  in  which  Elohim  is  used  as  a  proper  name, 
belong  to  the  older  Israelitish  sources,  or  the  name 
is  used  in  the  evolutionary  motif,  only  to  introduce  the 
name  JHVH  at  a  given  turn;  or,  else,  in  order  to 
identify  both  names,  Elohim  and  JHVH,  as  designat- 
ing the  identical  divine  Being  (cf.  1  Sam.  IX,  1-10; 
X,  1 ;  2  Sam.  VII,  18-29).  And  if  we  orient  ourselves 
well  in  the  Bible,  we  soon  realize  that  this  tendency, 
originating  in  Judea,  was  decidedly  successful  all 
along  the  line:  We  do  not  find  Elohim  as  the  proper 
name  of  God  in  any  literary  product,  Judean  or  Israel- 
itish, that  is  provably  younger  than  the  Jahvistic 
source  (except  for  a  few  Psalms  where  this  usage  has 
its  special  reason,  as  we  shall  see  later  on.) 

This  leads  up  to  an  orientation  in  the  development 
of  the  God-conception  and  the  divine  names  among  the 
prophets.  We  are  inclined  to  believe  that  the  sources 
E  and  J  are  older  than  Amos  and  Hosea.  For  even 
if  the  common  elements  be  more  than  just  common 
elements  going  back  to  an  older  common  source; 
and  even  if  we  were  justified  in  considering  certain 
phrases  and  ideas  in  those  sources  as  drawn  upon 
these  prophets,  it  would  prove  only,  what  has  never 
been  controverted,  that  the  sources  E  and  J  have 
come  down  to  us  only  after  they  had  been  variously 
refashioned,  and  with  numerous  later  interpolations. 
The  prophecies  of  Amos  and  Hosea  are  younger  than 
these  two  sources  of  which  J  is  the  younger  one  (and 
perhaps  also  for  this  reason  of  a  more  progressed 
monotheism).  Be  this  as  it  may,  we  shall  soon  see 
that  the  development  of  the  God-conception  and  the 
divine  names  among  the  prophets  was  going  on  under 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  33 

the  influence  of  those  tendencies  of  which  we  have 
noticed  more  in  the  Jahvistic  than  in  the  Elohistic 
source. 

Amos  whose  prophecies  generally  are  considered 
the  oldest  that  have  come  down  to  us,  never  uses 
Elohim  as  a  divine  name  in  the  absolute  status  (the 
same  is  true  of  Joel,  chaps.  I  and  II,  which  I  consider 
the  oldest  of  the  prophecies  that  have  come  down  to 
us).  This  Israelitish  prophet  who,  nevertheless,  most 
probably  hailed  from  Juda  and  was  standing  under 
Judean  influence  (Am.  I,  1;  VII,  12),  may  have 
evaded  the  name  Elohim  out  of  opposition  to  the 
mediation  of  angels  to  which  he  never  refers  in  his 
prophecies.  Also  the  emphasis  laid  by  him  upon  the 
holy  name  which  is  being  shamelessly  desecrated  by 
the  Ishtar-cult  in  the  practising  of  which  father  and 
son  meet  each  other  at  the  hierodoule  (II,  7;  IV,  2), 
point  clearly  in  this  direction.  The  elimination  of  the 
sexual  motive  from  the  sphere  of  the  divine  led  to  the 
incorporeal  God-conception,  to  the  name  of  "Holy 
Elohim,"  but  the  prophet  declines  Elohim  as  a 
divine  name  and  attaches  the  attribute  "Holy"  to 
JHVH.  Yet  Amos  could  not  ignore  the  name 
Elohim  altogether:  all  prophecies  of  Amos  are  borne 
by  the  motif  of  attributes.  All  the  prophetic  medita- 
tion hinges  around  the  question  whether  or  not,  and 
to  what  extent,  the  attributes  of  mercy,  as  contained 
in  the  Formula  of  Thirteen,  will  prevail.  Especially 
is  this  the  case  in  the  Five  Visions  at  the  end  of  the  book 
VII,  1-IX,  4).  Only  in  the  first  two  visions  the 
prophet  succeeds  in  cherishing  hopes  for  the  prevail- 
ing of  the  attribute  of  mercy,  while  the  three  last 


34  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


ones  fill  him  with  despair.  No  mercy  is  in  sight. 
In  such  a  moment  of  despair,  the  thought  comes  upon 
the  mind  of  the  prophet  to  discontinue,  temporarily 
at  least,  the  use  of  the  name  of  mercy,  JHVH,  and 
to  introduce  in  its  stead  JHVH  Elohei  Zebuoth 
(rv>N3¥  T6fc<  mrr)  as  a  temporary  name  of  God 
(VI,  8-14).  This  composite  name  is  to  remind  the 
people  that  in  the  time  of  visitation  mercy  would 
prevail  only  to  a  very  limited  extent. 

Hosea  is  the  prophet  of  Mercy  par  excellence. 
So  much  are  his  prophecies  permeated  by  the  motif 
of  attributes,  and  so  full  is  his  language  of  paronom- 
astic  allusions  to  the  Formula  of  Thirteen  that  some 
scholars  have  been  led  to  believe  that  Hosea  was  the 
final  redactor  of  that  Formula.  Now  this  alone  would 
sufficiently  account  for  the  fact  that  this  Israelitish 
prophet  uses  JHVH  exclusively  as  the  proper  name 
of  God,  so  much  so  that  he  raises  an  emphatic  protest 
against  the  temporary  name  JHVH  Elohei  Zebuoth 
introduced  by  his  older  contemporary  Amos,  insisting 
that  the  exclusive  name  of  God  is  JHVH,  nothing 
else.  But  the  context  in  which  this  occurs,  indicates 
that  Hosea's  exception  to  the  name  Elohim  is  due 
also  to  the  fact  that  Elohim  was  generally  in  use  for 
the  designation  of  angels  to  whose  mediation  Hosea 
was  professing  strong  opposition  (XII,  3-7;  cf.  chap. 
VIII  against  the  Calves  of  Samaria,  the  symbols  of 
the  angels.)  Hosea  who,  in  his  prophecies,  shows  so 
much  interest  for  Juda,  was,  as  also  shown  by  his 
preference  for  the  name  JHVH,  under  the  influence 
of  Jerusalem.  It  is  in  harmony  with  this  attitude 
that  Hosea  takes  exception  to  the  women  stories  of 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  35 

Jacob-Israel,  contrasting  him  with  the  prophet 
(Moses;  XII,  13-14;  perhaps  an  allusion  to  Ex. 
XVIII,  2,  according  to  which  passage  Moses  separated 
himself  from  his  wife  in  order  to  devote  himself  fully 
to  the  service  of  the  people).  This  is,  furthermore, 
in  accord  with  the  strong  emphasis  laid  by  Hosea  upon 
the  contrast  between  Juda  and  Israel-Jacob  in  favor 
of  the  former.  In  general,  so  intense  is  the  interest 
of  Hosea  in  the  fight  against  the  sexual  motive  in  the 
sphere  of  the  Divine  that  he  tries  to  fight  it,  as  it 
often  happened  in  the  history  of  spiritual  development, 
by  descending  upon  the  enemy's  own  ground  (chaps. 
I-IV,  especially  IV,  11-14  against  the  cult  of  Ishtar 
and  hierodoules) :  In  the  relationship  of  Israel  to  the 
Ba'alim  the  sexual  motive  is  the  guiding  element,  while 
in  his  relationship  to  JHVH  it  is  that  of  faithfulness 
and  exclusiveness  (chap  II).  It  is  in  this  spirit  that 
Hosea  gives  us  the  first  definition  of  God  as  expressly 
contrasted  with  the  human:  "For  I  am  God  and  not 
man,  (I  am)  a  Holy  One  in  thy  midst"  (XI,  9). 
But  while  in  former  times  (cf.  Joshua  XXIV)  the 
attribute  Holy  would  be  identified  with  "zealous 
God,"  Hosea  insists  that  the  attribute  Holy  brings 
it  about  that  mercy  will  be  prevailing  even  amid  the 
predicted  judgment  (XI,  8-11).  JHVH,  the  name 
of  mercy,  is  the  exclusive  name  of  the  God  of  Juda- 
Israel,  moreover,  the  exclusive  name  of  the  only 
divine  Being.  All  other  names  for  the  designation  of 
gods,  of  Ba'alim,  must  be  blotted  out,  should  not 
come  upon  the  lips  of  man  (II,  19).  Hosea's  defini- 
tion of  God  in  contradistinction  to  man  signifies  a 
perceptible   progress   in    the  direction   of   the   meta- 


36  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

physical    deepening    of    the    God-conception.     And 
also  one  other  feature  of  progress  in  that  direction  is 
perceptibly  started  by  this  prophet.     The  definition 
of  God  in  the  Formula  of  Thirteen  regards  only  the 
relation  of  the  attributes  of  Mercy  to  those  of  Justice. 
Alongside  of  that  Formula  we  also  find  the  attributes 
of  Might  and  Eternity  in  the  Bible,  specially  indicated 
in  passages  where  the  great  historic  doings  of  God  are 
spoken  of.     It  is  different,  however,  with  the  attribute 
of   Wisdom.     It  is  hardly  indicated,  and  then   inci- 
dentally  only,    never    in    a    Formula    including    the 
Thirteen  and  all  other  attributes.     It  is  with  Hosea 
that  the  first  elements  of  the  attribute  of  wisdom 
loom  largely  to   the  fore,  but  at  first  only  in   the 
theocratic  phase  of  it,  in  that  the  people  are  called  to 
realize   their   blindness   in   depending   on    their   own 
counsels  instead  of  following  the  counsels  coming  to 
them  from  the  Wisdom  of  God.     A  decided  progress 
in  this  direction  is  noticeable  with  Isaiah,  the  great 
Judean  prophet. 

Isaiah  begins  his  prophetic  career  at  a  time  preg- 
nant with  great  events.  All  the  minor  states  of 
Western  Asia  were  menaced  by  the  Assyrian  giant, 
Aram  and  Israel  were  menacing  Juda  for  her  refusal 
to  ally  herself  with  them  against  the  common  foe. 
Isaiah  preaches  against  this  alliance,  he  predicts  with 
great  enthusiasm  the  downfall  of  Israel  as  being  im- 
mediately imminent,  but  at  the  same  time  he  cherishes 
the  hope  that  afterwards  the  Remnant  of  Israel  will 
unite  with  Juda  into  one  real  Kingdom  of  God.  This 
may  be  the  reason  why  the  contrast  between  Israel 
and  Juda  does  not  make  itself  felt  in  Isaiah  as  strongly 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  37 

as  it  might  otherwise  be  expected.  The  prophet  was 
looking  forward  to  the  very  near  future  in  which 
united  Israel  will  have  his  religious  center  in  Jerusalem, 
And  also  personal  propensities  of  the  prophet  play 
a  great  part  in  this  matter.  Our  prophet,  being,  on 
the  one  hand,  the  great  opponent  of  the  Northern 
Kingdom,  was,  on  the  other,  at  any  rate  in  the  begin- 
ning of  his  career,  an  adherent  of  the  doctrine  of 
Mercabah  and  angels  upon  which  rested  the  right  of 
the  separate  religious  being  of  the  Northern  Kingdom 
(cf.  in  the  following).  But  for  all  that,  Isaiah  signifies 
the  highest  degree  of  religious  development  in  pre- 
Deuteronomic,  or  even,  considering  the  God-con- 
ception only,  pre-Jeremian  Judaism.  For,  summing 
up  the  entire  period  preceding  the  formulation  of  the 
monotheistic  theory  of  creation  and  the  cosmologico- 
metaphysical  God-conception  by  Jeremiah,  as  the 
period  of  the  pure  ethical  God-conception,  we  may 
say  that  Isaiah  signifies  the  most  adequate  expression  of 
this  period.  In  the  deduction  of  the  God-conception 
from  the  concept  of  holiness  Isaiah  goes  further  than 
all  of  his  predecessors.  Alongside  of  the  proper  name 
JHVH  he  uses  the  phrase  "the  Holy  One  of  Israel," 
an  attributive  designation  of  God  coined  by  Isaiah 
himself.  In  the  prophecy  of  consecration  (ch.  VI), 
the  verse  "Holy,  Holy,  Holy,  is  JHVH  Zebaoth,  full 
is  all  the  earth  of  his  Khacod,"  which  has  come  to  be 
known  almost  as  the  creed  of  Judaism,  is  the  intro- 
duction of  a  new  name  of  God.  In  this  formula  the 
attribute  "Holy"  in  itself  is,  of  course,  not  a  new  one, 
yet  not  only  the  emphatic  accentuation,  but  more  so 
the  combination  with  JHVH  Zebuoth  imparts  to  this 


38  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


formula  the  value  of  a  new  orientation  in  the  God- 
conception.  Isaiah  believes  in  angels,  but  he  declines 
them  as  mediators  between  God  and  His  people, 
leaving  them  the  mere  function  of  appearing  to  the 
prophet  in  his  first  vision  of  consecration  (VI,  6-9). 
The  strong  emphasis  laid  upon  the  attribute  "Holy", 
specifically  in  connection  with  this  vision,  intends 
evidently  to  neutralize  the  otherwise  anthropo- 
morphically  styled  appearance  of  God  in  this  vision 
(VI,  1).  As  to  the  designation  "JHVH  Zebaoth," 
evidently  also  of  Isaian  coinage  (this  in  spite  of  the 
occurence  of  the  composition  in  the  books  of  Samuel 
and  Kings,  passages  bearing  marks  of  later  inter- 
polations), it  reminds  of  "JHVH  Elohei  Zebaoth" 
in  Amos,  and  is  a  feature  of  development  along  the 
same  line.  Isaiah  never  uses  Elohim  as  the  proper 
name  of  God,  and  in  this  regard  he  goes  much  further 
than  Amos,  in  that  he  declines  the  use  of  "Elohei" 
even  in  combination  with  Zebaoth.  Nor  does  he 
share  the  standpoint  of  Hosea  inasmuch  as  he  accepts 
the  surname  Zebaoth  declined  by  Hosea,  using  it  very 
frequently.  Isaiah  considers  the  application  of  the 
attributes  of  mercy  as  expressed  in  the  Formula  of 
Thirteen  to  be  out  of  the  question  under  the  circum- 
stances. In  contrast  to  the  formula  of  the  divine 
attributes  of  mercy  he  coins  a  formula  of  the  attributes 
of  evil  of  the  people  which  bar  the  efficacy  of  the 
attributes  of  mercy  (I,  4).  The  allusions  to  the 
Formula  of  Thirteen  in  Isaiah  are  very  slight  and 
few  in  number,  and  even  these  few  are  retouched  with 
the  more  comprehensive  motif  of  justice  (IX,  16; 
XVI,  5;  XXIX,  18-19;  XXXIII,  2-5).     The  attribute 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  39 

of  Long-suffering  especially  seems  to  have  been 
given  up  by  Isaiah.  For  not  only  is  this  attribute 
never  appealed  to  by  the  prophet,  but  it  appears  to 
have  been  expressly  abolished  (VIII,  1-4).  All  data 
converge  in  the  indication  that  Isaiah,  like  Amos, 
favored  a  temporary  name  of  God  which  was  indi- 
cative of  a  reduced  measure  of  mercy,  but  at  the  same 
time,  in  spite  of  his  being  an  adherent  of  the  belief 
in  angels,  declined  to  use  the  name  Elohim,  even  in 
combination  with  JHVH  Zebaoth.  It  is  in  this  that 
the  Judean  attitude  asserts  itself  in  Isaiah.  JHVH 
Zebaoth  with  Isaiah  means  the  mighty  Lord  of 
Hosts  of  angels,  who  has  the  power  to  rule  the  world 
in  accordance  with  the  postulates  of  rigid  justice. 
Having  given  up  the  Formula  of  Thirteen  in  some  of 
its  essential  parts,  Isaiah  felt  the  need  for  a  new 
definition  of  God.  And  in  this  he  shows  an  out- 
spoken preference  for  epigrammatic  formulas.  New 
coinages  of  allusive  names  and  formulas  present  in 
the  prophecies  of  Isaiah  the  relationship  between 
justice  and  mercy,  as  also  a  more  comprehensive 
and  metaphysically  endeepened  definition  of  the 
divine  Being.  Such  are:  the  formula  of  attributes 
for  rulers  in  the  sense  of  the  theocratic  idea  (III,  2-3) ; 
the  names  given  to  children,  such  as  "God  with  us" 
(VII,  13:  tauoy;  cf.  rvrta),  "Hurry  for  booty," 
"Speed  up  pillage"  (VIII,  1-3)  and  "Wonder  (of  a) 
counselor  of  the  mighty  God,  the  Father  of  Eternity, 
the  Prince  of  Peace"  (IX,  5;  DlS>P  stands  for  Mercy, 
cf.  next  chapter.)  These  names  in  their  totality, 
express  the  attributes  of  mercy  and  justice,  of  wisdom, 
might  and  eternity  in  the  God-conception  of  Isaiah. 


40  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


A  more  finished  definition  of  God  by  Isaiah  appears 
in  the  comprehensive  formula  of  the  metaphysical 
attributes:  And  there  shall  rest  upon  him  the  Spirit 
of  God,  the  Spirit  of  Wisdom  and  Understanding,  the 
Spirit  of  Counsel  and  Fortitude  (Might),  the  Spirit  of 
Knowledge  and  of  the  Fear  of  the  Lord  (XI,  2).  This 
formula  signifies  an  earnest  endeavor  to  define,  in  a 
metaphysical  way,  the  divine  essence,  the  source  of 
justice  and  of  mercy,  as  expounded  in  the  prophet's 
own  explanation  added  to  this  formula  (cf.  Plato: 
Sophia,  Andreia,  and  Sophrosyne  (Fear  of  God)  are 
the  cardinal  attributes  of  all  active  reality).  And,  in 
general,  it  was  Isaiah  who  first  defined  God  as  Spirit, 
"Ruah,"  in  contradistinction  to  Man  (Body)  and 
Flesh  (Is.  XXXI,  3).  And  also  another  new  word- 
coinage  we  owe  Isaiah:  "Elilim"  (d^Ww)  "Noth- 
ings," as  a  designation  for  idols,  is  a  linguistic  creation 
of  the  theology  of  Isaiah.  In  former  periods  we 
find,  even  with  good  monotheistic  writers,  certain 
notions  of  the  "other  gods"  which  are  far  from  deny- 
ing them  all  entity  and  all  power  (cf.  Jud.  XI,  24; 
2  Kings,  III,  27).  To  be  sure,  they  considered  the 
other  gods  as  beings  inferior  to  the  God  of  Israel,  but 
they  did  not  deny  them  all  existence.  It  was,  then, 
Isaiah  who  attained  the  insight  into  the  nothingness 
of  the  other  gods,  and  who  gave  it  expression  in  a  new 
linguistic  coinage.  In  Isaiah  Judaism  achieves  its 
highest  stage  of  development  in  pre-Deuteronomic 
times.  Indeed,  the  literary  product  of  the  following 
century  is  so  meager  that  we  may  well  proceed 
immediately  from  Isaiah  to  Deuteronomy. 

The  book  of  Deuteronomy,  the  Book  of  the  Cove- 
nant of  Josia,  is  the  most  comprehensive  expression 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  41 


of  the  party  of  extreme  monotheists  which  discarded 
the  doctrine  of  angels  entirely,  to  the  extent  of  deny- 
ing the  existence  of  angels  altogether.  Deuteronomy 
avoids  Elohim  as  the  proper  name  of  God,  but  very 
often  uses  the  combination  of  JHVH  and  Elohim 
with  possessive  suffixes,  like:  "JHVH  your  God," 
"JHVH  thy  God."  Deuteronomy  obliterates  de- 
signedly all  the  vestiges  of  development  in  the  God- 
Conception.  According  to  its  presentation  the  name 
of  God  has  always  been  JHVH,  a  point  in  which  it 
follows  the  Judean  source  (J).  And  yet,  the  authors 
of  Deuteronomy  belong  to  those  (of  the  Jeremian 
School;  cf.  next  chapter)  who  continued  and  devel- 
oped the  opposition  to  the  attribute  of  Long-suffering 
started  by  Isaiah.  Not  only  is  there  no  mention 
of  this  attribute,  while  other  elements  of  the  Thirteen 
are  quoted,  but  it  is  expressly  declined  (VIII,  10). 
It  seems,  then,  that  Deuteronomy  uses  the  word 
Elohim  with  possessive  suffixes  in  order  to  lay  stress 
upon  the  idea  of  rigid  justice  inherent  in  this  word 
to  a  greater  extent  than  in  the  name  JHVH  which 
covers  the  Formula  of  Thirteen.  Isaiah's  usage  of 
JHVH  Zebaoth  to  express  the  same  idea  was  not 
acceptable  to  the  promoters  of  the  Deuteronomic 
Covenant,  its  meaning  being  at  that  time  "God  of 
hosts  (of  angels)".  It  was  quite  different  with  the 
name  Elohim.  This  word  gradually,  especially  after 
the  established  victory  of  the  name  JHVH,  came  to 
mean  "angels."  Now  the  reader  of  Deuteronomy 
often  experiences  the  marked  feeling  as  though 
"JHVH  thy  (or  your)  God"  means  to  say:  "JHVH 
Thy  Elohim,"  JHVH  who  alone  carries  out  all  that 
is  usuallv  ascribed  to  the  Elohim  (the  angels)  which 


42  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

in  reality  do  not  exist  at  all.  .  In  fact,  the  formula  of 
unity  in  Deuteronomy  seems  to  express  nothing  else 
but  this:  "Hear,  O  Israel,  JHVH  is  our  Elohim, 
JHVH  is  One!" — there  are  absolutely  no  Elohim 
beside  Him.  And  it  is  this  more  than  any  other 
feature  which  marks  the  progress  in  the  Deuteronomic 
God-conception.  In  the  metaphysical  formulation 
of  the  pure  ethical  God-conception  Isaiah  signifies 
the  consummation  of  the  biblical  development, 
Deuteronomy  merely  codifying  the  achievement  of 
Isaiah,  in  that  it  brings  the  law  in  harmony  with  the 
pure  spiritual  nature  of  the  Supreme  Being,  by  the 
absolute  prohibition  of  images.  But  over  and  above 
this  achievement  Deuteronomy  teaches  the  real  arith- 
metical and  dynamic  unity  of  the  Divine  Being,  a  point 
which  in  pre-Deuteronomic  times  always  was  ob- 
scured through  the  belief  in  the  existence  of  (eternal) 
angels.  Isaiah  and  Deuteronomy  combined  signify 
the  achieved  goal  of  the  development  of  the  pure 
ethical  God-conception  in  Juadism:  the  one  unique 
spiritual  God. 

3.    The  Other  Essential  Principles. 

Ethical  monotheism  is  inseparably  bound  up  with 
several  principles  without  which  the  moral  order  of 
the  world  is  inconceivable.     These  are: 

1.  Prophecy,  2.  Man's  Freedom  of  Will,  3.  Retribu- 
tion, and  4.  Essentiality  and  Substantiality  of  the  Soul 
of  Man. 

Now  to  a  certain  extent  these  principles  are  taken 
for  granted  to  be  the  basis  of  every  religion.  Thus 
we  may  say  that  these  four  principles  were  with  the 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  43 

Abrahamites  a  part  of  their  old  tradition.  However, 
no  matter  how  true  this  is,  these  principles,  too,  under- 
went a  long  and  eventful  development.  This  regards 
their  conscious  and  distinct  formulation  as  well  as 
the  emphasis  laid  upon  them.  And  then  again,  in 
connection  with  their  distinct  formulation,  there  was 
a  certain  development  in  the  purification  of  these 
principles  in  that  they  were  freed  from  the  contra- 
dictory features  inherent  in  them. 

As  compared  with  Semitic  paganism  the  progress 
in  these  principles,  even  in  the  fashion  they  present 
themselves  in  the  oldest  parts  of  the  Bible,  is  most 
obvious: 

Prophecy  gradually  ceased  to  be  a  sort  of  witch- 
craft by  which  man  could  learn  in  what  way  he  could 
gratify  the  various  passions  of  the  gods  so  as  to  secure 
their  favor.  Even  in  the  oldest  narratives  of  the 
Bible  the  prophet  is  looked  upon  as  a  man  who  stands 
for  justice  and  is  engaged  in  the  service  of  loving 
kindness  and  charity.  The  prophet  is  the  image  of 
his  God.  The  intercourse  of  God  with  the  prophet 
is  also  gradually  being  conceived  from  a  subtler 
standpoint.  The  idea  of  man's  freedom  is  gaining 
ground,  wrestling  it  inch  by  inch  from  the  dominion 
of  the  general  Fatum  encompassing  the  divine  and  the 
human  alike.  Retribution  ceases  to  be  an  act  of 
retaliation  and  vengeance,  as  looked  upon  in  pagan 
religion,  and  develops  in  the  sense  of  that  justice 
which  reclaims,  heals  and  redeems  even  while  it 
punishes.  The  Soul  of  man  comes  more  and  more  to 
be  considered  an  independent  god-like  entity.  But 
for  all  that,  if  we  compare  the  oldest  parts  of  the 


44  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Bible  with  Deuteronomy,  we  soon  become  aware  of 
the  fact  that,  like  the  God-conception,  the  principles 
connected  with  the  same  also  went  through  a  purifying 
development. 

In  the  older  parts  of  the  Bible  prophecy  still 
labors  under  a  certain  element  of  witchcraft  and 
sorcery,  and  the  angels  mostly  play  a  great  part  in 
the  prophetic  visions.1  But  alongside  of  these  older 
elements  there  are  long  stretches  in  the  Bible  in 
which  God's  intercourse  with  the  prophets  takes 
place  without  any  magic  adornment,  and  also  without 
the  mediation  of  angels.  Moreover,  at  places  there 
is  an  obvious  effort  to  slight  the  older  notions  of 
prophecy  and  to  replace  them  by  a  higher,  more 
spiritual  conception  of  divine  revelation.2  Par- 
ticularly it  would  appear  that  there  was  some  growing 
understanding  between  the  different  schools  of  wTriters 
to  eliminate  the  mediation  of  "the  'angel"  (or  the 
angels)  altogether  from  the  scene  of  the  Revelation 

i  Cf.  Gen.  XVI,  7-15;  XVIII;  XIX;  XXI,  17-18;  XXII,  11-18; 
XXVIII,  11-16;  XXXII,  2-7,  25-31;  XLVIII,  15,  16; 
Ex.  Ill,  1-6;  IV,  1-9,  24-26;  VII  ff.;  miracles  and  plagues 
in  Egypt;  XIV,  19;  XV,  25;  XXIII,  20  f.:  XXXII,  34; 
XXXIII,  2-12,  19-23;  Num.  XI,  24-29;  XII,  1-8;  XXI, 
8,9;  XXII,  20-35;  Jos.  VII,  10-18;  Jud.  II,  1-5;  VI,  11-24: 
XIII,  2-23;  1  Sam.  V,  1;  VII,  2;  IX,  1;  X,  16,  20,  22;  XIX, 
20-24;  XXII,  15;  XXIII,  2-12;  XXVIII,  6-25;  XXX,  7-8; 
2  Sam.  II,  1;  V,  19-24;  VI,  3-12;  XXIV,  1,  16,  17;  cf.  the 
parallel  1  Chr.  XXI;  1  Kings  VIII,  6-12;  XIII  (esp.  v.  18); 
XIX,  7;  XXII,  19-22;  2  Kings  I,  15;  II,  1-18,  and  in  general 
the  narrations  about  the  miracles  of  Elijah  and  Elisha. 

1  Jud.  VI,  7-10  obviously  against  Jud.  II,  1-5:  the  "prophetic 
man"  (NUJ  t^K)  replaces  "the  angel  of  JHVH"  (^D 
nifP);  1  Sam.  Ill,  1-4:  revelation  reduced  to  a  twee  coming 
from  the  unkown;  1  Kings  XIX,  11-12:  divine  revelation 
neither  in  storm,  nor  in  earthquake,  nor  in  fire,  but  in  a 
still  whisper,  as  against  verse  7. 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  45 

at  Sinai:  we  find  them  in  no  source.1  Thus  the  sug- 
gestion is  near  that  there  was  a  certain  movement 
against  the  part  of  angels  in  prophecy,  and  so  strong 
had  this  movement  become  that  even  those  prophets 
and  writers  who  otherwise  were  in  the  habit  of  em- 
ploying angels  in  their  accounts  of  revelations,  agreed 
to  eliminate  them  from  the  revelation  at  Sinai.  The 
same  is  to  be  said  of  dreams  as  a  means  of  revelation. 
Divine  revelation,  we  are  told,  comes  to  prophets  in 
dreams,  but  Moses  is  exempt  from  this,  his,  then, 
is  a  higher,  more  direct  form  of  revelation  (Num. 
XII,  6-8).  Here  it  is  clearly  stated  that  dreams  as  a 
means  of  prophecy  signify  a  lower  phase  of  revelation. 
Fortunately,  the  sources  permit  us  to  fix  with  a 
certain  degree  of  exactitude  some  chronological  data 
of  this  important  development.  Isaiah  is  the  last 
pre-D enter onomic  prophet  in  whose  prophecy  angels 
play  any  part  (ch.  VI).  And  seeing  that  this  is  the 
case  in  the  vision  of  consecration,  and  again  that  in 
this  very  vision  the  angels  as  mediators  between  God 
and  Israel  are  expressly  eliminated,  it  would  appear 
quite  likely  that  it  was  but  Isaiah  himself  who,  in 
spite  of  his  belief  in  the  existence  of  angels,  gradually 
came  to  the  conviction  that  the  Mercabah-visions 
usually  connected  with  a  divine  revelation,  are  mere 
illusions  which  in  the  higher  forms  of  inspiration  are 

1  Deut.  XXXIII,  2  is  to  be  read  vnp  ranOID ;  comp. 
the  parallel  in  the  Song  of  Deborah  Jud.  V,  4,  5, 
although  it  would  seem  that  this  latter  source  preserved 
(in  another  passage)  a  vestige  of  the  older  conception  in 
which  the  angel  entered  into  the  scene  of  revelation  at 
Sinai;  comp.  the  mn1  "JN70  in  Jud.  V,  23  with  Jud.  II, 
1-5  and  Ex.  XXIII,  20;  cf.  my  Gesch.  d.  jued.  Philos. 
II,  1,  p.  80. 


46  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

not  necessarily  a  part  of  the  prophetic  experience, 
and  thus  may  be  eliminated  entirely.  This  would 
be  quite  in  accordance  with  the  high  phase  of  de- 
velopment in  the  God-conception  achieved  by  Isaiah. 
Indeed,  Isaiah  seems  to  describe  the  higher  form  of 
revelation  as  being  a  voice  heard  in  the  ears  of  the 
prophet  (V,;  XXII,  14).  And,  in  general,  Isaiah 
fights  the  lower  man  tic  forms  and  all  crafts  of  sorcery 
with  great  emphasis  and  in  seething  terms  (VIII, 
1 9-2 1 ) .  Of  course,  the  efforts  to  oust  the  lower  man  tic 
forms  go  back  to  older  times,  prohibitions  to  that 
effect  having  already  been  enacted  in  the  first  Book  of 
the  Covemant  (Ex.  XXII,  17)  and  in  the  time  of  Saul 
(1  Sam.  XV,  23;  XXVII,  3,  9,  21).  From  the  latter 
case  we  can  infer  that  even  after  the  suppression  of 
necromancy,  if  the  law  mentioned  should  really 
have  succeeded  in  suppressing  it,  the  dream  was  still 
being  considered  a  legitimate  means  of  revelation 
(v.  6).  Rut  the  insight  that  the  dream  is  beneath 
the  dignity  of  a  divine  revelation,  may  also  have  been 
achieved  before  the  time  of  Isaiah:  King  Solomon 
is  the  last  of  pre-Deuteronomic  biblical  personalities 
of  whom  divine  revelation  in  a  dream  is  reported. 
This  account  seems,  indeed,  to  be  the  last  pre- 
Deuteronomic  document  in  which  the  dream  is 
recognized  as  a  legitimate  vehicle  of  revelation. 
The  prophets  between  Isaiah  and  Deuteronomy 
stand  on  the  ground  prepared  by  Isaiah  (Mi.  II,  11; 
III,  5-12;  V,  ll;Zeph.  111,4). 

The  Book  of  Deuteronomy  codifies  the  result  of  the 
development  in  the  conception  of  prophecy  as  out- 
lined in  the  preceding.     In  describing  the  scene  at 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  47 

Sinai  Deuteronomy  does  not  go  so  far  in  its  pro- 
gressive spirit  as  to  give  up  the  fire  out  of  which  the 
Voice  came  (V,  4,  5,  19-23),  but  it  at  least  gives  up 
the  thundering  and  lightning,  as  also  the  sounding  of 
the  trumpet,  features  that  play  so  prominent  a  part 
in  the  older  accounts  (cf.  Ex.  XIX,  16-19;  XX,  18). 
It  seems  that  in  describing  the  great  scene  at  Sinai 
even  the  Deuteronomists  thought  it  necessary  to  add 
at  least  one  ornamental  equipment,  "the  mountain 
burning  afire."  But  the  laws  about  prophecy  as 
enacted  in  Deuteronomy  profess  a  very  high  con- 
ception of  prophecy  (XIII,  2-6;  XVIII,  9-22).  The 
vehicle  of  revelation  as  used  at  Sinai,  "the  Voice  out 
of  the  fire"  is  expressly  abrogated  for  all  future,  re- 
placing it  by  a  higher  form  of  inspiration,  expressed 
in  the  words:  "and  I  will  place  my  words  in  his 
mouth."  This  shall  from  now  on  be  the  only  form 
of  revelation  for  all  Jewish  prophets  (XVIII,  15-18). 
This  is  an  open  repudiation  of  the  older  conception 
of  things  according  to  which  God  reveals  himself  to 
non-Jewish  prophets  also  (Num.  XXII),  using 
dreams  and  enigmatic  visions  in  revealing  Himself 
to  prophets  other  than  Moses,  thus  distinguishing 
Moses  not  only  at  Sinai  but  also  in  later  revelations 
(Num.  XII).  Deuteronomy  prohibits  not  only  all 
lower  mantic  forms  and  all  the  inferior  forms  of 
intercourse  with  God  in  usage  among  other  nations 
(XVIII,  9-14),  but  declares  as  false  prophets  all 
who  speak  in  the  name  of  dreams,  even  though  they 
are  good  Jews  (XIII,  2-6).  "Dream"  and  "Dreamer" 
in  this  section  of  Deuteronomy  is  synonymous  with 
"false  prophecy"  and  "false  prophet,"  respectively. 


48  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

And  this  linguistic  usage  continues  for  the  next  two 

centuries,  even  beyond  the  time  in  which  the  reaction 

sets  in.1     Miracles  and  other   magical  signs  are  no 

longer  a  proof  for  the  veracity  of  a  prophet,  according 

to  the  Deuteronomic  laws,  especially  in  cases  where 

the  prophet  tries  to  induce  the  people  to  transgress 

divine  injunctions  (Deut.  XIII,  2-6).     The  prophet 

has  only  one  task,  to  instruct  the  people  about  and 

to  inspire  them  for  the  pure  ethical  and  religious  life. 

The  only  sign  that  a  prophet  is  expected  to  offer  is 

the  prediction  of  future  events,  provided  he  does  not 

try  to  use  the  sign  as  a  proof  for  the  permission  to 

transgress  a  divine  law  (XVIII,  21,  22;  modified  later 

by  Jeremiah ;  cf .  below.) 

Freedom  of  man's  will  is  the  general  premise  in  the 

first  Book  of  the  Covenant   (especially  emphasized 

at  the  conclusion,  Ex.  XXIII,  20  f.)  as  well  as  in  the 

other   sources.     Nevertheless,    the   belief   in   eternal 

angels  seems  to  have  had  its  retarding  effect  also  upon 

the  development  of  the  idea  of  man's  freedom  toward 

its    higher    and    purer    ethical    conception.     In    the 

evidently  very  old  elements  of   the  later  source  J2 

(Younger  Jahvist),  for  instance,  we  find  the  view 

that  while  man's  will  is  free,  God  tries  to  prevent  him 

from  using  it  fully,  lest  he  should  become  too  mighty, 

nay,  "like  one  of  us"   (Gen.  Ill,  22;  VI,  5;  XI,  6). 

Again  in  E,  as  also  in  other  Israelitish  sources,  we 

meet  with  utterances  tending  greatly  to  reduce  the 

sphere  of  man's  freedom  in   that  they  suggest  the 

1  Cf.  Jer.  XXIII,  25-32;  XXVII,  9;  XXIX,  8;  Sech.  X,  2;  in 
the  exilic  prophecy  Joel  III,  1  (cf.  Tholdoth  ha-'Ikkarim  I, 
p.  30-31)  it  is  already  the  reaction  that  influences  thought 
and  language;  cf.  below. 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  49 


idea   of   God    now   preventing   man    from    carrying 
out   his   sinful  intentions,   now  again    inducing   him 
to  sin  in  order  to  make  him  fall  into  disaster  and 
ruin.1     These  strange  tendencies  toward  a  fatalistic 
restriction  of  man's  freedom  are  found  with  none  of 
the  pre-Deuteronomic  prophets  beginning  with  Amos 
(or  Joel  chap.  I  and  II;  cf.  above).     This  goes  to 
show  that  the  conception  of  man's  freedom  was  grow- 
ing in  purity  and  firmness  with  the  progress  in  the 
development  of  the  God-conception  by  the  prophets, 
especially  with  the  growing  weakening  of  the  belief 
in  angels  which  we  were  able  to  verify  with  all  the 
prophets,  including  Isaiah.  And  in  this,  too,  Deutero- 
nomy signifies  the  consummation  and  the  systematic 
expression     of     the    preceding    development.     Here 
man's  free  will  is  asserted  in  unequivocal  terms  and 
solemnly  emphasized  (V,  26;  VIII,  11-18;  XI,  26  f. 
and,  most  especially,  the  Thochaha  in  ch.  XXVIII). 
The  alteration  Deuteronomy  effects  in  the  account 
about  Balaam  is  particularly   noteworthy.     Accord- 
ing to  Deuteronomy  Balaam  was  not  prevented  from 
carrying  out  his  intention  of  cursing  Israel  (as  related 
in  Num.  XXII-XXIV),  but  Balaam  did  carry  out 
his  intention  and  did  curse  Israel  in  accordance  with 
his  free  will,   but   God   converted  the  curse    into    a 
blessing  (Deut.  XXIII,  6). 

Objectively    taken,    the    questions    of    freedom, 
Retribution  and  Soul  are  closely  interdependent  with 

1  Cf.  Gen.  XX,  6;  XXXI,  29;  Ex.  Ill,  19;  IV,  21  and  all  passages 
treating  of  the  hardening  of  the  heart  of  Pharaoh  against 
God;  cf.  Tholdoth  I,  p.  87-88;  Num.  XX-XXIV:  Balaam; 
1  Sam.  II,  25;  XXV,  26;  cf.  verses  33,  34,  39;  1  Kings 
XVIII,  37. 


50  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

each  other.  But  while  the  first  indications  of  this 
interdependence  in  the  subjective  consciousness  of 
the  biblical  writers  as  to  the  question  of  freedom  is 
noticeable  in  post-Deuteronomic  developments  only, 
the  connection  between  the  question  of  retribution 
and  soul  clearly  manifests  itself  long  enough  within 
the  period  of  the  Deuteronomic  development.  If  we 
compare  pre-Deuteronomic  biblical  literature  with 
the  corresponding  Babylonian,  or  Egyptian  literature, 
we  soon  notice  the  rather  strange  fact  that  the 
biblical  writers,  unlike  the  Babylonian  or  Egyptian, 
speak  exclusively  of  retribution  in  this  world,  having 
nothing  to  say  about  retribution  in  the  Hereafter. 
For  even  in  those  few  passages  where  the  Sheol  is 
spoken  of  (fifteen  times,  perhaps  also  Is.  VII,  11), 
there  is  no  definite  suggestion  that  retribution  in  the 
hereafter  is  aimed  at. 

But  a  thorough  inquiry  into  the  data  involved 
leads  to  the  following  orientation  as  to  the  facts  in 
the  case  (cf.  Tholdoth  1,2,  chaps  3  and  4) : 

In  the  Egyptian  "Book  of  the  Dead"  we  find  a 
rather  well  developed  system  of  retribution  in  the 
hereafter.  And  since  there  can  hardly  be  any  doubt 
that  the  biblical  writers  knew  of  this  Egyptian,  and, 
for  that  matter,  the  entire  general  Semitic  eschato- 
logical  mythology,  their  silence  about  this  important 
feature  of  religion  certainly  has  its  definite  reasons. 

To  begin  with,  one  could  not  say  that  there  is 
absolute  silence  on  this  subject  even  in  pre-Deuter- 
onomic biblical  literature.  In  two  places  at  least 
the  question  of  eternal  life  is  being  dealt  with  even 
though  with  negative  results   (Gen.   Ill,  22;  VI,  3; 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  51 

these  passages  are  most  likely  of  the  later  source 
J2,  but  evidently  elements  of  old  mythology).  Like- 
wise the  ''taking  away"  of  Enoch  and  Elijah  certainly 
go  to  show  that  the  idea  of  eternal  life  for  man  was 
not  unknown  to  the  pre-Deuteronomic  biblical 
writers  (the  passages  in  question  being  considered  as 
pre-Deuteronomic  by  the  best  authorities).  Now 
these  instances  are  of  great  importance  inasmuch  as 
they  contain  direct  eschatological  elements,  clearly 
connecting,  as  they  do,  the  idea  of  eternal  life  with 
man's  merit  and  guilt.  Still,  there  is  another  passage 
which  is  perhaps  even  more  important  and  of  a  more 
decisive  nature:  Elijah  prays:  "Grant  that  the  soul 
of  this  child  return  upon  his  body."  And  God 
answered  his  prayer,  "and  the  soul  of  the  child  re- 
turned upon  his  body,  and  he  revived  again."  (1 
Kings  XVII,  21,  22).  Here  it  is  stated  clearly,  and 
with  all  desirable  definiteness,  that  the  soul  of  man 
is  an  independent  substance,  an  individual  entity, 
which,  when  man  dies,  leaves  the  body,  and  which 
may  again  return  upon  the  body,  when  God  so 
ordains.  And  in  the  light  coming  from  this  passage 
the  eschatological  interpretation  of  another  passage 
becomes  quite  suggestive  (1  Sam.  XXV,  29).  The 
distinction  between  flesh  (ipo)  and  spirit  (mi), 
as  between  two  different  substances  is  also  found  with 
Isaiah,  and  this,  too,  in  close  connection  with  the 
God-conception  (Is.  XXXI,  3;  cf.  II,  22  and  XI,  2). 
And  here  we  are  at  the  very  point  of  view  from  which 
the  discussion  of  the  attitude  displayed  by  the 
biblical  writers  on  these  questions,  is  to  be  under- 
taken and  carried  through.     The  different  conception 


52  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

of  God  gradually  produces  a  different  conception  of 
man's  soul  also.  The  soul  as  conceived  in  Egyptian 
and  Semitic  eschatology  is  but  the  body  reduced,  be 
it  in  some  shady  existence  in  the  Sheol  or  driven 
through  all  those  strange  phases  known  in  the  doctrine 
of  migration  of  the  soul.  With  these  beliefs  there  were 
connected  all  kinds  of  abominable  practices  of  worship 
of  the  dead,  necromancy,  with  all  its  idolatrous  feasts 
and  rituals  which  only  too  often  served  to  cover  up 
the  worst  and  most  shameless  orgies  of  passion.  The 
new  God-conception  refused  all  connection  with 
these  beliefs  and  rites.  The  masess,  of  course,  knew  all 
of  these  beliefs  and  rituals,  and  certainly  only  too  often 
did  they  slide  back  into  these  attractive  practices  of 
superstition  and  lust,  if  the  prophets  ever  succeeded 
in  suppressing  them  at  all,  to  a  certain  extent  at  least. 
And  this  was  one  of  the  reasons  why  writers  and 
prophets  were  so  loath  to  give  definite  expression 
to  their  views  on  these  subjects.  The  people  had 
rather  too  much  eschatology.  The  narrating  sources 
do  use  the  word  "Sheol,"  but  only  in  the  meaning  of 
"grave,"  which  the  word  had  come  to  denote,  and 
never  in  its  eschatological  meaning.  The  prophets, 
Amos  (IX,  2.),  Hosea  (XIII,  14)  and  Isaiah  (V,  14; 
XXVIII,  14-18)  do,  indeed,  speak  of  the  Sheol,  but  in 
all  of  these  passages  it  is  the  popular  beliefs  and 
notions  that  the  prophets  utilize.  Moreover,  it  is 
mostly  evident  from  the  context  that  the  prophets, 
in  utilizing  these  popular  conceptions,  intend  to  point 
at  the  political  and  cultural  influence  of  Egypt  which 
they  considered  so  detrimental  to  Israel  and  Juda, 
and  which,  therefore,  they  were  fighting  so  eloquently 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  53 

and  so  emphatically.  At  times  they  condescend  to  the 
language  of  the  people  in  order  to  drive  it  home  to 
them  that  even  the  Sheol,  if  there  be  any,  is  in  the 
hand  of  God  (cf.  Proverbs  XV,  11;  verse  18  reminds 
of  the  later  conception  of  Sheol,  Hell).  As  to  Isaiah, 
this  aspect  of  the  matter  suggests  itself  more  definitely 
with  him  than  with  the  other  prophets.  For  it  is 
clear  that  the  abominable  necromantical  usuages  in 
vogue  among  the  people  which  Isaiah  condemns  so 
strongly  and  so  indignantly  (VIII,  19.  20;  XXIX,  4), 
are  attributed  by  him  to  the  Egyptian  influence  which  he 
condemns,  for  religious,  moral  and  political  reasons 
(XIX,  1-3;  XXII,  12-14:  the  death  feast  described 
here  is  known  to  be  of  Egyptian  origin;  XXVIII, 
14-18).  It  is  the  "Egyptian  Spirit"  (XIX,  3:  nn 
DnVD  ;  cf.  verse  14)  from  which  all  the  eschatological 
notions  and  abominable  practices  originated,  and 
which,  therefore,  was  opposed  so  strongly  by  Isaiah 
and  the  other  prophets  as  incompatible  with  the  new, 
strictly  monotheistic  God-conception. 

And  there  was  another  reason  why  prophets  and 
writers  in  pre-Deuteronomic  times  were  more  loath 
to  indulge  in  eschatological  utterances  than  their 
post-Deuteronomic  successors.  And  this  reason,  too, 
is  in  connection  with  the  higher  God-conception.  The 
ancient  Babylonian,  as  also  the  later  Jewish,  develop- 
ment, bears  witness  to  the  fact  that  the  cosmological 
God-conception  postulates  a  more  individual  con- 
ception of  retribution  than  does  the  pure  ethical 
God-conception.  The  doctrine  of  retribution  with 
the  Babylonians,  whether  referring  to  this  world  or  the 
hereafter,   is  essentially  of  an   individual  character. 


54  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

In  the  first  line  it  is  the  individual  to  whom  the 
threats  and  promises  of  the  gods  are  addressed.  And 
even  in  cases  where  national  fears  and  hopes  are 
the  subject  of  the  threats  or  promises,  it  is  always  some 
representative  individual  whose  weal  and  woe  are 
involved.  This  holds  true  especially  of  Egyptian 
eschatology  which,  in  conception  and  finish,  is  built 
entirely  on  the  credit  and  debit  account  of  the  individ- 
ual. The  cosmological  God-conception,  even  in  its 
higher  phase  of  development,  produces  a  certain  con- 
trast between  the  individual  and  the  outer  world. 
In  the  ancient  cosmological  theology  of  Egypt  and 
Babylonia  this  contrast  was  very  intense,  to  the  degree 
of  antagonism.  In  Israel  a  decisive  change  came  about 
with  the  elimination  of  the  cosmological  element  and 
the  development  of  the  pure  ethical  God-conception. 
The  egotism  inherent  in  the  individual  conception  of 
retribution  gradually  gave  way  to  the  growing 
sentiment  of  social  justice.  The  individual  discovered 
his  fellow-man,  his  neighbor.  The  hitherto  para- 
mount question  of  how  the  individual  is  to  get  his 
right,  begins  to  yield  to  the  one  of  how  the  individual 
is  to  guarantee  the  rights  of  others.  Now  the  eschatolog- 
ical  doctrine  of  retribution  is  largely  the  outflow  of  the 
sentiment  of  justice,  inasmuch  as  its  function  has 
always  been  to  appease  the  sentiment  of  justice,  not 
satisfied  in  this  life,  through  better  prospects  in  the 
life  hereafter.  But  in  spite  of  this  its  lofty  origin 
this  sentiment  is  largely  the  sentiment  of  the  individual. 
With  but  few  exceptions  each  and  every  individual 
deems  himself  right  and  not  sufficiently  rewarded 
in  this  life,  wherefore  he  expects  his  final  adequate 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY 55 

reward  in  the  life  hereafter,  just  as  he  expects  the 
punishment  of  those  others,  the  unjust,  in  the  future 
life.  Thus  eschatological  doctrines  of  retribution  are 
essentially  conceived  under  the  aspect  of  the  individual 
account.  Each  and  every  individual  has  his  own 
balance.  With  the  development  of  the  pure  ethical 
God-conception,  however,  this  viewpoint  underwent  a 
gradual  obliteration.  The  old  Semitic  and  Egyptian 
eschatology  had  to  be  discarded  not  only  on  account 
of  the  above  mentioned  pagan  exercises  attached  to 
it,  but  also  because  the  doctrine  of  absolute  individual 
retribution  had  been  becoming  less  and  less  compatible 
with  the  progressing  development  of  ethical  monothe- 
ism. The  divine  attribute  'Visiting  the  sins  of  the 
parents  upon  the  children"  and  its  counterpart 
"remembering  merit  unto  the  thousandth  generation," 
as  conceived  in  the  pure  ethical  definition  of  God  in 
the  Thirteen  Attributes,  corresponds,  indeed,  to  the 
growing  enlightenment  that  the  doctrine  of  absolute 
individual  retribution  is  in  keeping  neither  with  the 
realities  of  life  nor  with  the  higher  ethical  postulates. 
The  national  consciousness  in  the  old  narrating 
sources  (E  and  J)  is  so  intense  that  the  postulate  of  a 
wholly  individual  account  of  sin  is  not  considered  at 
all.  All  promises,  as  a  reward  for  good  conduct,  are 
of  a  national  character.  Seized  by  the  potent  national 
spirit  which  permeates  these  narratives,  the  reader, 
ever  so  much  leaning  toward  the  individual  view  of 
retribution,  will  feel  satisfied  in  the  end  that  it  is  the 
very  right  thing  for  retribution  not  to  tally  com- 
pletely in  the  life  of  the  individual,  but  rather  to 
balance  up  in  a  national-historical  accounting,  as  it 


56  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

were.  It  is  a  very  high  conception  of  historical 
personality  that  holds  sway  in  these  sources.  Each 
and  every  one  of  these  grand  life-sized  figures  of  the 
patriarchs  tells  you  at  first  sight  that  he  represents 
the  future  history  of  the  great  nation  in  his  own  life; 
that  his  soul  is  a  definite,  independent,  entity  which, 
like  a  mirror,  reflects  all  future  events  in  all  the  wealth 
of  the  varied  developments  in  the  history  of  the 
nation-to-be.  But  that  intense  realization  of  the 
spiritual  personality  does  not  draw  conclusions  in 
the  individual  eschatological  direction.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  intense  national  sentiment  can  well  afford 
to  do  without  individual  eschatology.  There  is  an 
equalizing  justice  on  earth,  in  the  history  of  the  nation, 
if  not  in  the  life  of  the  individual.  This  caused  them, 
as  it  made  it  possible  for  them,  to  do  without  any 
eschatological  doctrine  of  retribution  altogether,  at 
least  as  long  as  they  had  not  yet  found  any  higher 
conception  of  that  doctrine.  All  promises  occurring 
in  these  sources,  as  also  in  the  first  Book  of  the 
Covenant,  are  of  this  world,  and,  with  very  few 
exceptions,  of  a  national  character.  Even  good  or 
poor  crops  and  other  happenings  of  this  kind  which 
clearly  affect  the  individual  first,  are  promised  or 
predicted  to  the  nation  as  a  whole  (cf.  the  Thochaha 
in  the  first  Book  of  the  Covenant,  Ex.  XXIII,  25.26). 
This  holds  true  of  all  pre-Deuteronomic  prophets. 
Their  doctrine  of  retribution  is  of  this  world,  and 
national  in  the  main.  National  in  the  main,  but 
only  in  the  main.  The  national  note  in  the  pre- 
Deuteronomic  doctrine  of  retribution  simply  cor- 
responds to  the  fact  which  is  generally  recognized  in 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  57 

our  day  also,  that  the  scene  of  equalizing  justice  is 
to  be  sought  in  the  first  line  within  the  bounds  of 
the  natural  units.  However,  the  discovery  of  the 
fellow-man  within  the  national  unit  was  bound  to 
lead  up  to  the  same  discovery  outside  of  the  national 
community  also.  And  again  it  is  in  contrast  to  the 
oppression  of  the  stranger  experienced  by  the  Israel- 
ites in  Egypt,  that  kindness  and  humane  treatment  of 
the  stranger  are  enjoined  and  emphasized  in  the 
first  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  XXII,  20;  XXIII, 
9-12).  Egypt  had  a  well  developed  doctrine  of 
retribution  in  which  the  ethical  note  of  justice  was 
not  entirely  missing.  But  the  ethical  note  was  not 
only  compatible  with  individual  and  national  selfish- 
ness, but,  moreover,  the  postulate  of  complete 
individual  justice  had,  in  a  measure,  its  root  in  the 
very  promptings  of  selfishness.  It  was  natural  for 
the  prophets  whose  messages  were  not  of  a  legis- 
lative, but  rather  of  a  political  nature,  that  they 
very  often  took  a  severe  stand  against  the  other 
nations.  For  the  relation  between  nation  and  nation 
is  generally  different,  and,  indeed,  less  ethical  than 
that  of  the  nation  to  helpless  individual  strangers 
in  its  midst  (cf.  1  Kings,  XX,  31 ;  2  Kings,  VI,  21-23). 
And  yet,  here,  too,  the  uniting  force  of  the  ethical 
God -conception  comes  to  the  fore  in  the  universal 
hopes  of  the  prophets  of  which  we  will  speak  later  on. 
And  in  this,  too,  we  find  the  consummation  of  the 
development  in  Deuteronomy.  One  of  the  most  im- 
portant measures  taken  by  the  Deuteronomic  reform- 
ation was  the  removal  of  the  necromantical  practises 
and  all  other  pagan   rites  connected  with  them   (2 


58  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Kings  XXIII,  24,  referring  to  Deuteronomic  Law: 
"Be  sound  with  JHVH  thy  Elohim!",  cf.  Deut. 
XVIII,  9-13).  In  the  nationalization  of  the  doctrine 
of  retribution  the  Deuteronomic  document  goes 
beyond  all  older  sources,  including  the  prophets. 
All  historic  personalities  with  all  their  individual 
affairs  and  interests  disappear  almost  entirely  before 
the  all-dominant  national  entity.  Promises  and 
threats  are  addressed  to  the  nation  as  a  whole,  to 
an  even  greater  extent  than  it  is  the  case  in  all  the 
older  sources  (cf.  especially  the  Thochaha,  chap. 
XXVIII).  And  although  Deuteronomy  is  against 
the  attribute  of  "Long-suffering"  it  retains  those 
attributes  that  conceive  the  whole  doctrine  of  retri- 
bution under  the  national  aspect  (V,  9;  the  human 
judge,  of  course,  must  adhere  to  strict  individual 
responsibility — XXIV,  16).  And  here  again  the 
national  aspect  is  not  one  of  selfishness  toward  the 
stranger;  on  the  contrary,  in  this,  too,  Deuter- 
onomy signifies  a  very  decisive  step  forward.  The 
national  policy  required  it,  of  course,  that  at  times 
they  had  to  act  on  the  principle  of  "war  is  war," 
but  even  for  times  of  warfare  very  humane  laws  are 
enacted.1  And  again,  the  prevailing  of  the  strength 
of  the  stranger  over  the  nation  is  threatened  with  as 

1  XX,  10-20;  the  verses  15-18  (19)  decidedly  make  an  impression 
of  a  later  interpolation.  They  are  in  sharp  contrast  to  the 
humane  enactments  around  them.  Besides,  the  harmoniza- 
tion which  these  verses  are  to  bring  about,  cannot  be  effected 
at  all,  if  we  compare  the  humane  enactments  here  with  the 
older  practice  reported  in  2  Kings  III,  19-25,  where  the 
nation  affected  is  not  one  of  the  "seven  nations."  And 
then,  too,  the  prohibition  of  the  felling  of  a  "good  tree" 
extends  to  all  nations  without  any  exception. 


/ 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY                        59 
i 

one  of  the  greatest  curses/  Nevertheless  it  is  just  the 
treatment  of  the  stranger  in  the  Deuteronomic  law 
that  signifies  the  decidedly  humane  character  of  this 
Book  of  the  Covenant.  Not  only  is  the  oppression 
of  the  stranger  prohibited,  referring  emphatically  to 
Egypt  (XXIII,  8;  XXIV,  14.17;  cf.  XVII,  16), 
but,  beyond  that,  the  reference  to  Egypt  is  considered 
strong  enough  to  carry  the  injunction  to  take  care  of 
the  stranger  (XIV,  21.29;  XVI,  11-14;  XXIV,  19-22; 
XXVI,  5-13.).  The  humane  sentiment  toward  the 
stranger,  contrasted  emphatically  with  Egyptian 
selfishness,  goes  so  far  as  to  derive  from  it  the  duty 
of  not  despising  any,  not  even  the  Egyptian  stranger 
(XXIII,  8.9),  and  to  love  all  other  strangers.  And  in 
order  to  emphasize  this  injunction  even  more  strongly, 
the  attribute  of  "loving  the  stranger"  is  embodied  in 
the  definition  of  the  God  of  Might  and  of  Justice. 
The  stranger  is  placed  under  the  special  protection 
of  the  Jewish  Definition  of  God!  (X,  17-20).  The 
Edomite,  moreover,  is  called  "brother"  (XXIII,  8). 
For  all  its  national  exclusiveness,  the  Deuteronomic 
Book  of  the  Covenant  reaches  out  for  an  all-com- 
prising universal  community  of  mankind.  The  range 
for  equalizing  Justice  is  so  wide  that  the  eschat- 
ological  hopes  have  no  soil  left  to  draw  on. 

The  great  step  forward  which  Deuteronomy 
signifies  in  the  dogmatical  development,  can  also 
be  seen  from  the  systematic  presentation  which  all 
the  principles  of  Judaism  of  that  time  have  found 
in  this  Book  of  the  Covenant.  Attentively  read,  the 
arrangement  of  the  subjects  in  Dueteronomy  is  as 
follows : 


60  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Corresponding  to  the  two  Covenants,  the  Cove- 
nant at  Sinai  and  the  renewal  of  the  same  after  the 
backsliding  in  the  worship  of  the  golden  calf,  the 
historical  introduction  of  Deuteronomy  consists  of 
two  sections  (V-VIII  and  IX-XI),  each  of  which  offers 
an  elucidation  of  the  principles  of  Judaism:  Chapter 
V:  unity  of  God  and  prophecy:  chapters  VI-VIII: 
retribution  and  (VIII,  11-18)  freedom  of  will:  chapter 
IX:  the  violation  of  the  principle  of  unity:  chapter  X: 
renewal  of  the  Covenant  through  the  new  Tablets  of 
the  Covenant  {prophecy);  chapter  XI:  retribution 
and  (XI,  26  f.)  freedom  of  will.  The  arrangement  of 
the  Deuteronomic  laws  is  also  in  accordance  with 
this  plan:  Chapter  XII:  laws  for  the  safeguarding  of 
the  monotheistic  God-conception:  chapter  XIII:  laws 
on  prophecy  (XIV,  1-21  links  with  the  preceding 
idea  of  the  selection  of  Israel  to  ethical  holiness); 
chapter  XIV  (from  verse  22  on) — XXV:  laws  based 
on  the  idea  of  retribution,  especially  those  of  a  forensic 
nature,  civil  and  penal:  chapter  XXVI:  Confession 
of  faith  in  divine  providence  (on  the  basis  of  retribu- 
tion), and  chapter  XXVIII:  admonition  through 
threats  and  promises  (freedom  of  will  and  retribution ; 
cf.  to  this  whole  matter  Tholdoth  ha-'Ikkarim,  I, 
p.  42-43). 

4.    The  Religious-Cultural  Life. 

The  spiritual  development  of  Judaism  presented 
in  the  preceding  covers  what  may  be  styled  the 
authoritative  line  of  the  development  of  the  prophetic 
postulates.  And  while  it  is  true,  in  a  general  way, 
that  there  has  always  been  a  certain  correspondence 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  61 

between   the   prophetic  postulates  and   the  level  of 
the  religious  and  cultural  life,  due  orientation  in  the 
sources  reveals  the  indubitable  fact  that  often   the 
most  appalling  backsliding  into  pagan  practices  in  all 
forms  of  religious  and  cultural  life  occurs  at  times 
when  the  authoritative  theoretical  progress  records  its 
highest  successes.     And,  again,  however  extreme  in 
their  postulates  prophets  and   lawgivers   may  have 
been,  it  is  to  be  expected  beforehand,  as  it  really  hap- 
pened, that  the  unlawful  religious  practice  and  the 
pagan  form  of  culture  in  the  life  of  the  people  made 
their  influence  greatly  felt  in  nature  and  tendency  of 
the  postulates  of  prophets  and  lawgivers.     On   the 
one  hand  the  extreme  excesses  of  life  were  bound  to 
evoke  attempts  at  a  reform  likewise  extreme.     On 
the  other  hand,  however,  the  obstinacy  of  realities 
was  bound  to  compel  even  the  most  radical  of  re- 
formers to  consider  opportune  compromises  with  the 
conditions  and  powers  that  be.     This  was  necessary 
in  order  to  convert  at  least  a  part  of  their  high  ideals 
into  reality,  hoping  that  any,  even  the  slightest,  step 
forward  in  the  realm  of  real  life  would  greatly  enhance 
the  ideal  and  bring  life  ever  nearer  to  it.     What  the 
spiritual  leaders  told  the  people  about  God  and  other 
religious  beliefs   may  have  appealed   to   them  very 
much,  but  the  difficulty  was  rather  in  the  conclusions 
that  the  leaders  were  drawing  for  piactical  life.     And 
those    conclusions    and    postulates    were    the    more 
difficult  to  live  up  to,  as  all  forms  of  culture  were 
almost   inseparably  bound   up  with   pagan  religious 
beliefs  and  rites.     The  people  could  well  recognize 
this  or  that  prophetic  doctrine  in   theory  without, 


62  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

however,  being  able  to  part  with  the  forms  of  life 
dear  to  them  and  in  vogue  in  their  environment.  In 
such  a  state  of  affairs  the  people  were  only  too  ready 
to  avail  themselves  of  whatever  remnant  of  paganism 
and  of  whatever  inconsistencies  there  were  to  be 
found  in  the  teachings  of  their  leaders,  in  order  to 
defend  their  conventional  forms  of  life  as  being  well 
compatible  with  the  authoritative  teachings.  And 
then,  too,  there  were  the  political  conditions  which 
were  stronger  than  the  will  of  both  the  prophets  and 
the  people.  The  political  sovereignty  of  one  people 
over  another  in  those  times  meant  the  almost  in- 
evitable dominance  of  the  cultural  and  religious  forms 
of  the  conquerer  in  the  life  of  the  conquered.  This 
imperiled  not  only  the  prophetic  God-conception  as 
such,  but  even  more  so  those  practical  postulates 
which  the  prophets  derived  from  the  ethico-mono- 
theistic  God-conception.  Semitic,  and  Egyptian, 
religion  was  essentially  ritual,  a  system  of  rites  and 
exercises  by  which  one  could  remain  on  friendly 
terms  with  the  gods.  And  those  rites  and  exercises 
were  of  such  a  nature  that  they  often  called  for 
actions,  as  holy  and  god-pleasing,  which  the  prophets 
of  Israel  abhorred  as  the  greatest  abominations.  In 
such  situations  some  of  the  prophets  would  take  a 
very  radical  attitude  toward  certain  religious  prac- 
tises and  would  go  in  their  denunciation  of  such 
practises  beyond  what  the  authoritative  law  of  the 
Jewish  Community  really  warranted.  As  a  result  of 
this  we  find  that,  aside  from  the  contrast  between 
theory  and  life  in  general,  there  also  was  a  certain 
contrast  between  the  prophets  and  the  law. 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  63 

Under  the  aspects  just  characterized  we  get  the 
following  outlook  upon  the  development  of  the 
religious  and  cultural  life  of  the  Jews  in  the  period 
beginning  with  the  Sinaitic  Covenant  and  extending 
to  the  Deuteronomic  Covenant. 

We  have  already  intimated  above  that  we  in- 
terpret the  tradition  of  the  backsliding  of  the  people 
after  the  Sianitic  Covenant  as  a  reflex  of  the  fact  that 
the  enthusiasm  for  the  reforms  inaugurated  by  that 
Covenant  which  may  have  reached  the  masses  of  the 
people  for  a  while,  relaxed  soon  afterwards,  and  that 
the  people  therefore  soon  returned  to  their  idols  and 
their  idolatrous  life.  Be  this  as  it  may,  the  fact  is 
warranted  in  all  biblical  sources  that  the  various 
attempts  at  reform  failed  again  and  again,  and  that, 
with  a  few  interruptions,  the  whole  span  of  time 
intervening  between  the  two  Covenants  was  replete 
with  backslidings  and  aberrations,  the  interruptions 
in  Juda  being  more  frequent  and  of  longer  duration 
than  those  in  Israel.  These  backslidings  had  their 
causes  not  only  in  the  cultural  conditions  of  life,  the 
influences  of  the  environment,  the  power  of  custom, 
and  the  mental  inertia  of  the  people,  which  rendered 
it  unable  to  grasp  the  ideas  of  its  leaders  to  reform 
life  accordingly,  but  also  in  the  half-heartedness  of  the 
new  doctrine  itself.  In  times  of  more  or  less  victorious 
wars  with  the  other  tribes  of  Canaan  the  national- 
religious  enthusiasm  may  have  been  powerful  enough 
to  bring  the  people  a  little  nearer  to  the  ideas  and 
postulates  of  their  leaders.  In  times  of  peace,  how- 
ever, or  in  times  when  they  were  entertaining  friendly 
alliances   with    surrounding    nations,    and    most    es- 


64  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

pecially  in  times  when,  through  the  force  of  circum- 
stances, such  as  alliance  or  subjugation,  they  came 
under  the  influence  of  the  great  world-powers,  As- 
syria-Babylonia or  Egypt, — in  times  like  these  the 
people  hardly  could  see  why  and  wherefore  they 
should  deny  themselves  so  completely  to  the  Ba'alim 
and  other  idolatrous  deities.  Are  there  no  other 
divine  beings  beside  JHVH?  Are  there  no  angels? 
And  could  not  Peor,  Khemosh,  Milkom,  Dagon,  and 
other  gods  of  the  nations,  enjoy  their  existence  at  the 
side  of  JHVH  as  his  angels?  Of  course,  the  rituals 
of  these  gods  required  certain  practices  that  were 
objectionable  according  to  the  law  of  the  Book  of 
the  Covenant  and  the  teachings  of  the  prophets. 
But  the  people  had  all  reason  to  believe  that  in  the 
service  of  the  gods  they  well  could  do  things  other- 
wise objectionable.  Take  the  worst  of  these  prac- 
tices, Ishtar  and  Moloch-worship:  Unchastity  and 
Murder.  Why,  does  not  the  national  tradition  tell 
of  intermarriage  between  heaven  and  earth  (Gen.  VI), 
and  of  a  human  sacrifice  ordained  by  Elohim  (G^n. 
XXII)  ?  True,  the  first  Book  of  the  Covenant  prohibits 
a  Massechah,  an  image  of  Elohim  or  images  of  any 
gods  (Ex.  XX,  23;  XXXIV,  17;  the  prohibition  of 
images  in  the  decalog,  Ex.  XX,  3,  was  taken  over  from 
the  decalog  in  Deuteronomy).  But  this  cannot 
possibly  mean  a  general  prohibition  of  images. 
For  not  only  was  the  Micah-image  (Jud.  XVII)  known 
in  tradition  as  a  meritorious  work  devoted  to  JHVH, 
and  as  an  institute  the  priest  of  which  was  no  less  a 
man  than  the  grandson  of  Moses  (ibid.  XVIII,  30), 
but  even  of  Moses  himself  they  knew  that,  at  the 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  65 


command  of  God,  he  made  the  image  of  a  Seraph, 
and  ordained  its  worship  as  a  mediator  between  JHVH 
and  his  people  (Num.  XXI,  9).  And  this  Seraph 
was  with  them  at  the  Temple  in  Jerusalem  as  a  sacred 
symbol  of  a  mediation  Seraph  in  heaven.  Why 
then,  not  erect  also  Matsebhoth  and  Asheroth  (2 
Kings,  XVIII,  4)?  And  as  to  the  Cherubs,  they,  too, 
seem  to  root  in  an  old  tradition  from  the  time  of  Moses. 
At  any  rate,  there  were  cherubs  in  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem,  and  calves  in  the  temples  of  Bethel  and 
Dan.  Our  tradition,  coming  from  Juda  (where  it 
underwent  certain  revisions  in  the  time  of  its  final 
redaction),  as  it  appears  to  the  critical  reader,  presents 
the  cherubs  as  legitimate,  as  against  the  calves  in 
Israel,  which  are  marked  as  an  abberration  from 
JHVH.  The  fact,  however,  is  that  'Agalim  were  just 
as  legitimate  as  Cherubim,  both  being  elements  of  the 
mysterious  Mercabah-image,  hardly  intimated  in  pre- 
Deuteronomic  literature  (Ex.  XVII,  16  (?);  2  Kings, 
XXII,  19;  Is.  VI),  but  depicted  in  full  detail  in  later 
products  (Ez.  chap.  I).  Indeed,  we  strike  here  a 
point  of  pre-eminent  significance.  In  Israel  they 
could  not  think  of  giving  up  the  worship  of  images, 
and  were  it  only  for  the  one  reason  that  in  the  differ- 
ence between  'Agalim  and  Cherubim  they  had  the 
best  weapon  against  the  claim  of  Jerusalem  upon  the 
character  of  a  central  sanctuary,  and  thus  the  most 
efficient  justification  of  their  separate  existence, 
religious  and  political.  The  difference  between  Cher- 
ubim and  'Agalim  seems  to  have  been  in  connection 
with  certain  astronomical  phenomena:  The  cherubs 
probably   reach    back    to    the    period    of    the    Twins 


66  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

(gemini),  in  which  sign  the  sun  moved  in  the  most 
ancient  times  of  traceable  history.  Thus  in  ancient 
Babylonia  a  pair  of  cherubs  was  symbolic  of  the 
divine  power,  a  significance  attached  to  them  even 
later,  at  a  time  when  the  sun  long  ago  (2500  a.)  had 
receded  from  that  sign  into  the  sign  of  the  bullock 
(taurus).  Hammurabi's  reform  of  the  calendar  in 
accordance  with  the  changed  astronomical  situation 
had  no  influence  upon  the  development  of  the  notion 
of  cherubs  with  the  Abrahamites  (Juda).  Quite 
different,  however,  was  the  situation  in  Israel.  The 
Israelites  went  through  a  more  intense  Egyptian 
influence.  The  Egyptians  were  bullock-worshippers 
(Osiris- Apis,  Serapis).  Added  to  this  was  the  in- 
fluence of  post-Hammurabian  Babylonia,  an  influence 
to  which  Israel  was  more  exposed  than  Juda.  The 
difference  between  the  Judean  and  the  Israelitish 
calendar  to  which  tradition  refers  (1  Kings,  XII, 
32.33),  seems,  indeed,  to  be  of  the  same  nature  as 
that  between  the  old  Babylonian  and  the  Hammu- 
rabian  calendars,  thus  growing  out  organically  from 
the  difference  between  Cherubim  and  'Agalim. 

The  difference  between  Cherubim  and  'Agalim 
mirrors  itself  also  in  the  different  versions  of  the 
tradition  concerning  the  first  backsliding  of  Israel 
after  the  Covenant  of  Sinai  (Ex.  XXXII).  The 
writers  of  Israel  naturally  do  not  admit  that  this 
aberration  consisted  in  the  Israelites  making  a 
golden  calf.  How  could  they  admit  that  the  worship 
of  a  calf  as  the  symbol  of  the  divine  was  illegitimate, 
in  face  of  the  fact  that  this  symbol  formed  the  very 
center  of  the  JHVH   worship  in   Bethel   and   Dan? 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  67 

The  'Egel- tradition  was  handed  down  to  us  from 
Juda,  expressing  therewith  marked  hostility  and  con- 
tempt for  the  central  symbol  of  the  Israeli tish  temples 
of  JHVH.  In  Israel  the  writers  would  speak  only 
of  a  Massechah,  but  never  of  an  'Egel- Massechah. 
In  the  tradition  of  Israel  it  was  Ahron,  the  ancestor 
of  the  priesthood  in  Jerusalem,  who  wrought  the 
Massechah,  in  the  Judean  tradition,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  tribe  of  Levi  was  the  only  one  to  keep  away 
from  the  sinful  worship  of  the  golden  calf,  and  so 
qualified  itself  as  the  avenger  of  that  great  sin.  This 
controversy  extended  to  other  questions  also.  In 
Israel  they  denied  the  genuineness  of  the  Tablets  of 
the  Covenant  and  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  in  the 
temple  of  Jerusalem.  They  claimed  that  the  temple 
of  Bethel  was  in  possession  of  thi  original  Scroll  of 
the  Covenant,  written  by  Moses  himself,  and  guarded 
under  the  "Stone  of  Testimony"  (myn  p«),  a 
plain  stone  with  no  writing  on  it  (cf.  Josh.  XXIV,  26). 
In  Juda,  of  course,  they  insisted  on  the  genuineness 
of  the  Ark  and  the  Tablets  of  the  Covenant,  main- 
taining that  "All  the  Words  of  the  Covmant"  (not 
only  the  Ten  Commandments)  were  written  on  the 
Tablets.  (All  pre-Deuteronomic  passages  mentioning 
the  Ark  are  of  Judean  origin;  the  idea  of  Ten  Com- 
mandments as  the  exclusive  contents  of  the  Tablet 
seems  to  be  a  later  development  within  the  Deutero- 
nomic  School.) 

Thus  in  North  and  South  they  were  interested  in 
th^  doctrine  of  angels,  in  the  worship  of  images  and 
in  religious  relics.  Moreover,  the  question  of  what 
kind  of  images  should  be  worshiped  was  the  religious 


68  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

basis  of  all  political  differences.  No  wonder,  then, 
that  the  people  were  always  disposed  to  yield  to  the 
slightest  pressure  and  to  add  the  unlawful  worship  of 
images  to  the  lawful  whenever  the  occasion  called  for 
it.  And  why  should  they  give  up  the  general  age- 
revered  custom  of  worshipping  and  sacrificing 
at  public  and  private  High  Places  (WM),  equipped 
with  a  shrine  and  a  pair  of  cherubs  or  calves  and  some 
other  statues  in  conformity  with  the  local  environ- 
ment? All  this  considered,  we  can  well  understand 
that  stereotype  report  that  even  in  the  time  of  the 
"good  kings"  the  Bamoth  never  disappeared  from 
Juda.  As  long  as  angels  were  worshiped  as  mediators 
and  their  symbols  were  revered  in  the  central  sanct- 
uary, it  was  impossible  to  make  the  people  realize  that 
Ba'alim  and  Bamoth  were  unlawful. 

Slowly  but  incessantly  these  conditions  brought 
the  leaders  of  Juda  to  the  realization  that  the  claim  of 
the  central  position  of  Jerusalem  could  not  be  justified 
under  the  dominion  of  the  theory  of  angels.  This 
led  to  the  awakening  of  the  heretofore  rather  dor- 
mant opposition  to  the  belief  in  angels  as  medi- 
ators among  the  prophets  in  Juda,  and,  under  their 
influence,  also  among  the  prophets  in  Israel,  since  they, 
too,  were  desirous  of  bringing  about  the  unity  of  the 
nation  with  Jerusalem  as  th*  center.  As  long  as  the 
great  adversary  in  the  North  existed,  any  yielding  in 
the  claim  of  possessing  the  genuine  Ark  and  the 
genuine  Tablets  of  the  Covenant,  or  of  the  genuine 
Seraph  of  Moses  and  the  genuine  Cherubim  of 
Solomon,  would  have  been  interpreted  by  the  people 
as  va  weakness.  The  people  in  Juda,  devoted  as 
they  were  to  the  worship  of  images,  lawful  or  unlawful, 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  69 


could  easily  be  brought  to  waver  in  their  devotion  to 
Jerusalem,  and  possibly  even  to  consider  the  temple 
in  Bethel  as  the  real  seat  of  JHVH.  That  is  why  all 
reforms  bearing  on  this  matter,  including  the  attempts 
of  the  best  kings  of  Juda,  never  extended  beyond  the 
unlawful  worship  of  images.  It  was  not  until  Israel 
had  been  hopelessly  trodden  down  by  mighty  Ashur, 
and  idolatry  had  been  greatly  enhanced  under  the 
religious  and  cultural  influence  of  the  conqueror 
(2  Kings  XVI,  2-4,  10-18),  that  Hezekiah  dared  to 
remove  not  only  the  unlawful  Matseboths  and 
Asheroth  ( I  sh tar-statues)  and  the  tolerated  Bamoth, 
but  also  one  of  the  lawful  images,  the  Nehushthan,  the 
Seraph  of  Moses  (2  Kings,  XVIII,  3-12).  The  foe  in 
the  North  was  no  more,  and  so  the  first  step  to  do  away 
with  the  symbols  of  angels  and  the  entire  worship  of 
images  could  be  undertaken.  Possibly  they  had 
already  realized  at  that  time  that  they  would  have  to 
remove  the  entire  lawful  worship  of  images,  as, 
indeed,  they  were  then  already  thinking  of  the 
necessity  of  a  renewal  of  the  Covenant  (cf .  2  Chr.  Chaps. 
XXIX-XXXI).  But  they  did  not  dare  lay  their 
hands  upon  the  Cherubim  and  the  Ark.  In  times 
of  great  distress  in  war  the  Ark  would  still  be  carried 
in  front  of  the  fighting  army.  The  Cherubs  were  the 
symbols  of  angels  whose  existence  and  function  were 
warranted  by  the  first  Book  of  the  Covenant  engraved 
in  the  Tablets  of  the  Covenant.  There  the  "angel  of 
JHVH,"  the  "Mal'akh  JHVH,"  was  the  central 
figure,  the  real  bearer  of  the  Covenant. 

But  in  the  days  of  Menasseh  the  aberrations  grew 
to  such  horrible  dimensions  that  the  "Pessel  Asherah" 
was  again  placed  in  the  Temple  of  JHVH,  and  the 


70  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Ish tar- worship  flourished  "in  the  towns  of  Judah  and 
the  streets  of  Jerusalem."  It  was  then  that  the 
spiritual  leaders  of  the  people,  among  whom  (accord- 
ing to  a  talmudic  tradition  well  borne  out  by  the 
biblical  data  at  hand)  Zephaniah  and  (young)  Jeremiah 
played  as  great  a  part  as  the  prophetess  Huldah  and 
the  high  priest  Hilkiyahu,  recognized  that  theirs  was 
"a  time  to  act  for  the  sake  of  God,"  that  the  time  had 
come  to  attack  the  evil  at  its  very  roots.  They  won 
King  Josiah  for  their  plan  of  removing  all  symbols 
of  the  inconsistently  monotheistic,  nay,  almost  half- 
polytheistic  past,  and  of  making  room  for  a  system 
of  worship  carried  out  on  the  basis  of  strict,  absolute, 
monotheism.  And  so  it  happened  that  the  Cherubim, 
the  Ark,  and  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  as  also  all  other 
(magical)  relics,  such  as  the  heavenly  fire,  the  Urim  we- 
Thumim  (the  Oracle)  and  Oil  of  Anointment,  disap- 
peared from  the  temple  in  Jerusalem  forever.  And 
this  extreme  measure  was  announced  to  the  people, 
in  Jerusalem  by  the  Levites  and  in  the  towns  of  the 
land  by  Jeremiah,  as  the  will  of  God,  according  to 
which  even  the  memory  of  the  Ark  should  be  blotted 
out.1  The  effect  of  this  announcement  was  so  deep 
and  so  lasting  that  the  reports  about  the  history  of 
the  last  kings  of  Juda  carefully  avoid  any  mention 
of  the  Ark.  In  connection  with  this  action,  and  as  a 
consequence  thereof,  the  king  ordained  the  destruc- 
tion of  all  unlawful  images,  the  cells  of  Ishtar  and  her 

1  Cf.  Jer.  Ill,  16;  VII,  4;  n»n  may  refer  to  the  cherubs  (cf. 
Ez.  X,  20-22  and  XLI,  20-21)  and  be  the  first  intimation 
that  the  cherubs  were  removed;  XI,  1-13;  2  Chr.  XXV,  3; 
Mish.  Shek.  VI,  1,2;  Joma  V,  2;  Thos.  Shek.  II,  18;  Yom 
hak-Kipp.  Ill,  6,  7;  Jer.  Tha'an.  Hal.  1  and  parallels;  Bab. 
Joma  p.  53-54;  Hor.  p.    11-12;    cf.    Tholdoth   I,  chap.  3. 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  71 

hierodoules,  all  places  of  Moloch,  Khemosh  and 
Milcom,  as  also  all  public  or  private  Bamoth,  hereto- 
fore tolerated  as  a  quasi-legal  institution,  and  all 
lower  mantical  forms — all  of  this  not  only  in  Juda, 
but  also  in  Israel,  which  had  become  a  dependency  of 
Juda  in  all  matters  religious.  The  report  about 
these  acts  of  reform  (2  Kings  XXII  and  XXIII) 
gives  us  a  survey,  as  it  were,  of  all  forms  of  idolatry 
and  mantical  devices  ever  practiced  in  Israel  and  Juda, 
which  then,  on  the  occasion  of  the  new  covenant,  were 
removed  and  destroyed. 

The  most  serious  difficulty  anent  our  orientation 
in  the  events  around  the  new  covenant  confronts  us  in 
the  question  of  the  removal  of  the  first  Book  of  the 
Covenant.  How  did  they  manage  to  make  it  plausible 
to  the  people  that  God  withdraws,  as  it  were,  the  first 
Book  of  the  Covenant  in  order  to  replace  it  by  a  new 
one?  The  biblical  report  is  to  the  effect  that,  incident 
to  repairs  in  the  temple,  the  high  priest,  Hilkiyahu, 
found  a  book  in  which  great  disasters  were  predicted 
as  a  punishment  for  the  unlawful  practices  of  the 
people,  and  that  the  fear  of  that  punishment  led  to 
the  renewal  of  the  Covenant  (2  Kings,  XXII;  Jer. 
XI,  1-13).  This  report  has  been  harmonized  with  the 
traditional  view  about  the  origin  of  the  Torah  (that 
the  five  books  of  Moses  were  dictated  to  him  literally 
by  God),  by  the  interpretation  that  the  book  found 
was  the  personal  copy  of  Deuteronomy  (the  fifth  book 
of  Moses),  which  King  Menasseh  discarded,  disre- 
garding the  command  that  the  king  should  always 
carry  such  a  copy  with  him  and  never  depart  from  it. 
The  "find",  according  tothistalmudical  interpretation, 


72  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

did  not  consist  in  a  new  scroll  unknown  before  to  king 
and  nation,  but  in  the  fact  that  they  found  that  book 
unrolled  at  the  great  admonition,  the  Thochaha, 
(Deut.  chap.  XXVIII),  which  they  took  as  an  omen 
that  a  great  national  disaster  was  threatening.  But 
reading  the  biblical  report  under  critical  orientation 
in  all  relevant  sources  and  historical  events,  it  becomes 
clear  at  once  that  the  report  about  the  finding  of  the 
book  presumes  the  possibility  that  a  new  book  of 
Moses  was  found  of  which  none  of  all  those  concerned 
ever  knew  anything  before.  The  picture  presented  by 
this  report  of  the  conditions  preceding  the  renewal  of 
the  covenant,  is»well  compatible  with  the  presumption 
that  there  could  be  in  existence  a  book  of  Moses  without 
any  of  the  contemporaries  knowing  anything  about  it. 
This  report  reached  us  in  a  later  redaction,  and  we  find 
there  no  attempt  to  clear  up  the  relation  of  the  newly 
found  book  to  the  first  Book  of  the  Covenant,  but  this 
does  not  preclude  that  the  original  report  contained 
such  a  statement.  It  is  not  only  possible  but  highly 
probable  that  the  original  report  contained  something 
like  the  following  explanation  of  the  find : 

Before  his  death  Moses  enlarged  upon  and  explained 
the  first  Book  of  the  Covenant,  and  this  enlarged  book, 
even  the  Deuteronomy,  was,  according  to  the  inten- 
tion of  Moses,  to  replace  what  was  considered  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant  since  the  days  of  Sinai  (what 
we  call  the  first  Book  of  the  Covenant;  Ex. 
XX-XXIII).  The  scroll  containing  this  book  was 
throughout  these  centuries  in  the  keeping  of  the 
authorities,  and  the  good  kings  and  priests  prior  to 
Menasseh    had   directed   all    efforts   toward    guiding 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  73 

the  people  in  accordance  with  the  statutes  and 
ordinances  of  this  book.  But  the  intention  of  Moses, 
to  have  this  book  introduced  as  the  final  book  of  the 
covenant,  has  never  been  carried  out  (cf.  Deut.  XVII, 
17-20 :  The  king  should  take  a  copy  of  the  Deuteron- 
omy in  the  keeping  of  the  Priests  and  the  Levites,  and 
carry  it  constantly  on  his  person).  In  the  long  reign 
of  Menasseh,  however,  this  book  was  neglected,  even 
by  king,  priest,  and  Levite,  and  so  it  happened  that 
they  estranged  themselves  ever  more  and  more  from 
JHVH.  And  now  the  great  disaster  announced  in 
this  book  draws  threateningly  near.  Therefore  the 
king  and  the  spiritual  leaders  of  the  people,  priests 
and  prophets,  considered  it  as  the  need  of  the  hour  to 
rally  and  carry  out  the  intention  of  Moses,  and  to 
introduce  this  book  publicly  as  the  final  Book  of  the 
Covenant.  This  book  contains  absolutely  no  refer- 
ence to  angels,  to  images  in  the  temple,  or  to 
Bamoth.  On  the  contrary,  it  contains  an  absolute 
prohibition  of  images  and  demands  the  unconditional 
centralization  of  the  sacrificial  cult  in  the  temple  of 
Jerusalem.1  In  order  to  live  up  to  the  more  rigid  re- 
quirements of  this  book,  they  had  to  remove  not  only 
the  unlawful  images,  but  also  those  images  that  here- 
tofore had  been  considered  lawful,  as  also  the  Bamoth, 
heretofore  tolerated  as  a  half-legal  institution.  Thus 
even  the  Cherubim  and  the  Ark  with  the  first  Book 


Deut.  V,  8;  VII,  5;  chap.  XII;  an  exception  to  the  general 
rule  is  admitted  in  regard  to  the  passah-lamb,  which  origi- 
nally was  a  house-sacrifice,  and  conserved  this  character  even 
after  the  centralization.  But  even  this  house-sacrifice 
was  now  confined  within  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  so  that  all 
desiring  to  celebrate  the  Passah  in  due  form  had  to  pilgrim 
to  Jerusalem;  Deut.  XVI,  1-7;  cf.  Gesch.  d.  jued.  Philos. 
II,  l,p.  209  ff. 


74  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

of  the  Covenant,  as  also  all  other   relics,   had    to  be 

removed,  according  to  the  final  intention   of  Moses. 

In  this  narrative  which  we  presume  to  have  been 

contained  in  the  original  complete  report  in  2  Kings, 

chaps.  XXII  and  XXIII,  we  have  to  change  not  more 

than  one  point  in  order  to  make  it  present  what  we 

consider  to  have  been  the  real  course  of  events,  no 

matter  whether  the  explanation  of  the  finding  of  the 

book   outlined    above   was   really   contained    in   the 

original  report  in  the  second  book  of  Kings,  as  we 

presume,  or  not.     The  point  to  be  changed  concerns 

the  question  of   Moses'    authorship  of   the   book    of 

Deuteronomy.     "We    do    believe    that    the    spirit  of 

Deuteronomy  in  its  inception  goes  back  to  the  time  of 

the  first  Covenant  which  is  covered  by  the  name  of 

Moses.     But  at  the  same  time  we  believe  that  this 

spirit  needed  all  these  centuries  of  experience,  in  the 

struggles  with  the  adverse  conditions  without  and  in 

growing  self-realization  within,  in  order  to  be  able  to 

attain,  by  a  gradual  development,  to  that  height  on 

which  we  find  him  in  Deuteronomy.     We  believe  that 

the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  in  a  literary  sense,  is  the 

product  of  a  very  long  development.      Its  theoretical 

parts    (V-XI    and    XXVIII)    consist    of    prophetic 

sermons  addressed  to  the  people  on  different  occasions, 

as  they  developed  in  the  prophetic  schools  throughout 

the    ages.     The    legal    sections    (XII-XXVI)    were 

gradually  produced  through  the  practice  of  individual 

priests  and  judges  who  developed  the  statutes  of  the 

first  Book  of  the  Covenant  by  adapting  them,  through 

interpretation,  to  conditions  of  life  more  developed  and 

more  complex  than  those  at  the  time  of  the  first  Book 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  75 

of  the  Covenant  (in  the  relation  of  the  legal  sections  of 
Deuteronomy  to  the  first  Book  of  the  Covenant  there 
already  appear  the  first  elements  of  Oral  Law).  Un- 
doubtedly, however,  the  collection  and  the  redactional 
shaping  of  all  these  primary  elements  into  one  organic 
whole  was  the  work  of  the  spiritual  leaders  of  that 
time,  Zephaniah,  Jeremiah,  Chilkiyahu,  Shaphan  and 
others.  These  men  carried  out  this  great  work  with 
the  consent  of  the  king,  and  presented  it  to  the  people 
as  the  testament  of  Moses.  They  could  do  so  with  a 
good  conscience,  being  convinced  that  this,  no  doubt, 
was  the  final  intention  of  Moses.  He  surely  hoped 
and  desired  that  his  people  would  eventually  overcome 
and  eliminate  all  image-worship,  Bamoth  and  all  relics 
savoring  of  pagan  origin,  although  he,  Moses,  himself, 
was  not  able  to  carry  out  his  great  ideal  in  his  own 
time.  Of  course,  there  were,  even  among  the  prophets 
and  spiritual  leaders,  those  who  had  their  great 
apprehensions  against  this  radical  step,  even  though 
they  may  have  been  favorably  inclined  toward  the 
principles  of  the  reform  in  a  general  way.  There  cer- 
tainly were  also  those  who  sincerely  believed  in  angels, 
Cherubim,  Ark,  Tablets,  Urim  ve-Thumim,  heavenly 
fire,  oil  of  anointmnet  and  other  ritual  institutions  to 
which  they  clung  with  their  hearts,  even  though  they 
were  opposed  to  all  unlawful  institutions  of  that  kind. 
But  those  rigid  monotheists  who  had  been  preparing 
the  Deuteronomic  Covenant,  had  won  the  king  to 
their  ideas,  and  so  they  were  enabled  to  undertake  the 
great  attempt  to  reform  the  life  of  the  nation  according 
to  the  postulates  of  the  most  rigid  monotheism.  They 
hoped  that  not  only  the  unlawful  but  also  the  lawful 


76  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

worship  of  images,  as  also  the  Bamqth,  would  disap- 
pear entirely.  Furthermore,  they  hoped  that  the  new 
Book  of  the  Covenant  would  oust  from  their  authorita- 
tive, or  semi-authoritative,  positions  all  literary 
documents  opposing  their  ideas,  such  as  the  first  Book 
of  the  Covenant,  the  composition  E  and  J  and  others. 
They  knew,  of  course,  that  copies  of  the  first  Book  of 
the  Covenant  and  the  other  writings  condemned  to 
be  "hidden  away"  were  in  existence  in  considerable 
numbers  in  certain  literary  circles  in  Israel  and  Juda. 
But  they  hoped  that,  with  the  aid  of  the  official  author- 
ties,  they  would  be  able  to  keep  the  opposition  down 
and  eventually  to  overcome  it  entirely.  In  this  wise, 
they  hoped,  they  would  be  able  to  clear  the  path  lead- 
ing to  the  reformation  of  the  religious-cultural  life  of 
th^  nation  on  the  basis  of  the  new  Book  of  the  Cove- 
nant. 

Corresponding  to  the  movement  in  the  religious 
life  sketched  above  there  was  a  parallel  movement  in 
all  higher  manifestations  of  culture:  architecture, 
plastics,  music  and  dance,  literature,  legislature,  as  also 
in  the  general  attitude  to  the  world  without. 

The  lawful  and  semi-legal,  and,  most  especially, 
the  widely  flourishing  unlawful,  worship  of  images, 
necessitated  a  certain  development  of  sculpture  and 
artistic  cutting,  carving  and  weaving.  This  may  be 
gathered  notably  from  the  report  about  the  building 
of  the  temple  by  Solomon  (only  for  copper -work  they 
had  to  import  a  Syrian  artisan,  who,  by  the  way,  was 
a  half-breed  Jew;  1  Kings,  VI,  13  ff.,  40  f.).  Plastics 
as  well  as  architecture  were  piimarily  serving  religion, 
lawful  or  unlawful.     But  these  artistic  efforts  could 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  77 

not  fail  to  influence  private  life  also.  The  grand 
mansions  of  Solomon  may  have  overshadowed  every- 
thing known  previously  in  architecture  and  decorative 
art  in  Palestine.  They  certainly  were  not  the  first, 
and  much  less  the  only,  artistically  finished  buildings 
in  Palestine.  On  the  contrary,  the  buildings  of 
Solomon  indicate  that  there  was  a  well  developed  art, 
plastical  and  ornamental.  As  to  a  certain  cultivation 
of  decorative  art  in  dwellings,  garments  and  jewelry, 
we  have  the  testimonies  of  the  prophets  in  their  ser- 
mons against  the  careless  luxuries  of  the  mighty 
(Am.  VI  1  f.).  and  most  specifically  against  the 
immodesty  and  unchaste  obstrusiveness  of  the 
daughters  of  Zion  (Is.  Ill,  16-26).  Of  these  forms  of 
art  plastics  was  particularly  dependent  on  image- 
worship,  and  an  attack  upon  the  one  meant  an  attack 
upon  the  other  also.  From  the  final  prohibition  in 
Deuteronomy  (V,  8 ;  cf.  VI,  15-18)  of  any  chiseled  or 
molten  image  we  gather,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  law 
aimed  to  prohibit  even  the  mere  making  of  images, 
which  were  generally  used  as  objects  of  reverence  and 
worship,  but,  on  the  other  hnad,  that  the  law  by  no 
means  aimed  at  the  complete  suppression  of  the 
architectural  and  ornamental  arts.  On  the  contrary, 
the  taking  over  of  the  Canaanitic  houses  with  their 
equipments  and  the  continuation  of  their  building 
style  are  announced  as  a  part  of  the  forthcoming 
blessing  after  the  entrance  into  Palestine ;  at  the  same 
time,  however,  the  warning  is  sounded  to  beware  of  the 
peril  that  with  the  secular  also  the  religious  art  is 
bound  to  creep  in  and  take  hold  of  their  minds  (Deut. 
VI,  9-15;  VIII,  7-20;  IX,  1).     Thus  it  may  be  said 


78  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

that  the  plastic  and  decorative  arts  in  pre-Deuter- 
onomic  Palestine  were  demanded  and  cultivated  not 
only  by  the  unlawful  but  also  by  the  lawful  religious 
practice.  And  everything  (including  recent  explora- 
tions) goes  to  show  that  this  form  of  art  attained  a 
rather  high  degree  of  development  and  was  consider- 
ably in  vogue  (of  painting  we  hardly  hear  anything  in 
pre-Deuteronomic  times). 

The  same  maybe  said  of  music,  dancing,  and  singing. 
They  formed  an  important  element  not  only  of  the 
illegal  ritual  (Ex.  XXXII,  6.  17-19),  but  also  of  the 
legal  (2  Sam.  VI,  13-17 ;  Jer.  XXX,  29).  Furthermore 
they  were  the  usual  forms  in  which  the  people  would 
give  vent  to  their  feelings  of  rejoicing  over  great 
events  in  the  life  of  the  nation,  such  events  largely 
being  viewed  from  a  religious  aspect  (Ex.  XVI,  1-20; 
1  Sam.  XVIII,  6.  7;  XXI,  12;  note  the  prominent 
part  that  women  took  in  such  perf oi  mances) .  And 
also  in  private  life,  in  social  gatherings  of  all  kinds, 
music  and  songs  were  forms  of  entertainment  (cf. 
Amos  VI,  5).  And  they  seem  to  have  had  so  deep  an 
understanding  for  music  that  they  tried  to  dispel 
mental  depression  by  means  of  the  soothing  influence 
of  proper  tunes  (1  Sam.  XVI,  15-13;  XIX,  9).  And 
not  only  the  power  to  exorcise  the  "evil  spirit,"  but 
also  that  of  attuning  the  mind  for  the  prophetic 
inspiration,  the  "Spirit  of  God,"  they  ascribed  to 
music  (1  Sam.  X,  5).  To  our  modern  way  of  thinking 
this  suggests  a  very  high  conception  of  the  religiously 
edifying  power  of  music,  and  to  a  certain  extent  we 
may  suppose  this  conception  to  have  been  realized  in 
the  old  prophetic  schools.     However,  the  authorita- 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  79 

tive  circles  seem  to  have  had  some  grave  reason  to 
decline  all  musical  efforts  in  connection  with  prophecy 
and  holy  service.  The  Book  of  Deuteronomy  knows 
nothing  about  music,  neither  for  nor  against  it. 
Nowhers  in  the  Bible  is  there  any  positive  indication 
of  the  reason  working  here,  but  there  cannot  be  any 
doubt  that  there  was  some  efficient  reason  for  this 
reticent  attitude  which  we  also  notice  in  later  ages. 
(Possibly  tha  leason  is  to  be  looked  for  in  the  promi- 
nent part  taken  by  women  in  such  performances;  most 
likely,  however,  it  was  the  function  of  music  in 
mantical  rites  that  made  music  and  song  an  undesirable 
element  in  the  holy  service.  For  even  in  the  later 
sources  of  the  Torah  in  which  the  sound  of  the  trumpet 
appears  as  an  item  of  the  service,  there  is  absolutely 
nothing  about  music  and  song  of  the  Levites  of  which 
the  Book  of  Chronicles  knows  so  much  and  which,  as 
we  also  know  from  other  sources,  formed  so  prominent 
an  institution  in  the  second  Temple.  Indeed,  the 
Talmudists  are  greatly  embarrassed  when  it  comes  to 
finding  some  backing  in  the  Torah  for  this  most  promi- 
nent service  of  the  Levites  at  the  sacrificial  functions 
in  the  temple  (cf.  Bab.  'Arach.  11a  and  Num.  Rab. 
VI,  11,  and  further  below  to  the  Book  of  Chronicles). 
The  intimate  connection  between  religion  and 
literature  in  ancient  Israel  was  variously  touched 
upon  in  the  preceding:  the  gradual  overcoming  of  the 
sexual  motif  in  the  conception  of  the  early  history, 
which  meant  the  elimination  of  the  most  tenacious 
obstacle  on  the  road  to  the  genuine  monotheistic  God- 
conception,  and  the  actual  development  of  the 
ethico-monotheistic  God-conception  under  the  motif 


80  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

of  attributes,  signify  the  religious  root  of  all  literary 
efforts  in  Israel.  This,  of  course,  is  not  an  exclusively 
Israelitish  trait.  None  of  the  ancient  nations  had  any 
altogether  non-religious  literature  (the  Pythagoreans, 
for  instance,  considered  even  mathematics  a  religious 
discipline — a  view,  traces  of  which  we  still  find  with 
Plato).  New  in  the  Abrahamitic-Israelitish  develop- 
ment is  the  elimination  of  the  sexual  motif  dominant 
in  general  Semitic  literature,  and  the  centering  of  all 
literary  thoughts  around  the  motif  of  attributes,  thus 
substantiating  and  solidifying  the  ethico-monotheistic 
God-conception.  Except  for  the  Song  of  Songs  in 
which  old  elements  of  a  secular  erotic  nature  were 
evidently  utilized,  all  that  has  come  down  to  us  of 
biblical  literature  is  of  a  religious  character.  Here  and 
there  we  find  some  remnants  of  a  general  literature  of 
Fable  and  Wisdom  of  a  secular  character  (cf.  Jud.  IX, 
8-15;  1  Ki.  IV,  11-13;  2Ki.  XIV,  9  and  numerous 
verses  in  Proverbs  and  Ecclesiastes) .  But  the  fact 
that  only  these  few  elements  of  that  literature  were 
preserved,  clearly  shows  that  the  literary  activity  was 
growing  on  a  religious  basis  in  the  main.  Thus  as  to 
its  contents  the  entire  literature  consisted  of  two 
branches,  one  religious  and  the  other  secular;  the 
secular  branch,  of  which  only  little  has  come  down  to 
us,  being  made  up  of  erotic  songs,  fables  and  sayings 
of  wisdom.  One  passage  seems  to  point  to  the 
existence  of  a  book  containing  a  description  of  the 
animal  world  (Is.  XXXIV,  16).  But  the  name  of  it, 
"Book  of  JHVH,"  may  be  taken  as  an  indication  that 
the  whole  presentation  served  the  religious  outlook  of 
the  subject.     As  to  its  form,  we  distinguish  in  biblical 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  81 

literature  prose,  poetry,  and  poetically  attuned  prose,  the 
latter  form  employed  in  prophecies,  solemn  addresses, 
and  partly  also  in  fables.  The  same  division  applies 
to  the  form  of  those  writings  which  served  our  biblical 
historical  works  as  sources,  and  of  which  hardly  more 
than  the  titles  have  come  down  to  us.1 

A  glance  over  the  present  biblical  literature,  as  also 
over  the  titles  of  those  biblical  writings  which  have  not 

1  These  are: 

1.  The  Book  of  the  Story  of  Adam — Gen.  V,  1. 

2.  The  Book  of  the  Wars  of  J HVH— poetical,  Num.  XXI,  14. 

3.  The  Sepher  hay-Yashar — poetical,  Josh.  X,  13;  2  Sam. 

I,  18. 

4.  The  Book  of  the  History  of  Solomon — 1  Ki.  XI,  41. 

5.  The  Book  of  the  History  of  the  Kings  of  Israel. 

6.  The  Book  of  the  History  of  the  Kings  of  Juda. 

7.  The  Book  of  the  History  of  the  Kings  of  Israel  and  Juda. 

Numbers  5,  6  and  7  are  quoted  very  often  in  the  Books 
of  Kings  and  Chronicles. 

8.  The  Midrash  of  the  Book  of  the  Kings— 2  Chr.  XXIV,  27. 

9.  The  History  of  Samuel,  the  Seer,  and  the  History  of 

Nathan,  the  Prophet,  and  the  History  of  Gad,  the  Seer, 

1  Chr.  XXIX,  29. 

10.  The  History  of  Nathan,  the  Prophet,  and  the  Predictions 

of  Ahiah  of  Shiloh,  and  the  Vision  of  Jedo,  the  Seer, 
about  Jeroboam,  the  son  of  Nebat — 2  Chr.  IX,  29. 

11.  The  History  of  Shemajah,  the  Prophet,  and  of  Iddo, 

the  Seer,  a  Pedigree— 2  Chr.  XII,  15. 

12.  The  Midrash  of  the  Prophet  Iddo— 2  Chr.  XIII,  22. 

13.  The  History  of  Jehu,  the  son  of  Hanani,  intercalated  in 

the  Book  of  the  Kings  of  Israel— 2  Chr.  XX,  34. 

14.  The  Rest  of  the  History  of  Usia,  written  by  Isaiah,  the 

Prophet,  the  son  of  Amoz— 2  Chr.  XXVI,  22. 

15.  The  Vision  of  Isaiah,  the  Prophet,  the  son  of  Amoz,  in 

the  Books  of  the  Kings  of  Juda  and  Israel — 2  Chr. 
XXXII   32. 

16.  The  History  of  Hosai  (or  of  the  Seers)— 2  Chr.  XXXII, 

19. 

17.  Pedigree— Neh.  VII,  5;  cf.  1  Chr.  V,  17;  2  Chr.  XII,  15. 

18.  The  later  History  of  David  (treating  particularly  of  the 

Census  of  thePeople)— 1  Chr.XXIII,  27;cf.  XXVII,24. 

19.  Collection    of    "Lamentations"    (hak-Kinnoth) — 2    Chr. 

XXX,  25;  this  may  be,  in  part  at  least,  identical  with 
our  "Lamentations"  (cf.,  however,  Sepher  hay-Yashar 

2  Sam.  I,  17.) 


82  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

come  down  to  us,  will  soon  convince  us  that  pre- 
Deuteronomic  literature,  in  which  we  include  also 
those  works  which,  while  finished  later,  go  back  to 
pre-Deuteronomic  sources,  consisted  largely  of  His- 
tory and  historical  orientations.  This  is  easily  explained 
by  the  general  character  of  the  pre-Deuteronomic  God- 
conception.  "The  Book  of  the  History  of  Adam" 
(Gen.  V,  1)  which  is  supposed  to  be  an  ancient  source 
drawn  upon  by  the  younger  Jahvist  (J2),  may  still  have 
contained  some  cosmogonic  elements.  In  its  primary 
elements  that  book  may  have  belonged  to  the  first 
written  products  of  Abrahamitic  literature.  But  in 
the  progess  of  the  development  things  shaped  them- 
selves so  that  the  more  written  literature  gained  ground, 
the  more  was  the  literary  supply  of  the  people  becom- 
ing dependent  on  their  spiritual  leaders.  And  these 
latter,  we  know,  were  rather  inclined  to  suppress  the 
cosmogonic  interest  of  the  people  in  order  to  cultivate 
in  its  stead  much  the  more  intensely  the  historical 
interest.  All  narratives  and  elucidations  had  the  only 
purpose  to  present  and  to  prove  to  the  people,  by 
the  course  of  history,  the  merciful  workings  of  God 
for  the  benefit  of  His  chosen  people.  All  arguments 
of  the  pre-Deuteronomic  prophets  and  writers  are  tak- 
en from  history.  The  cosmological  element  was  neg- 
lected by  both  of  these  groups,  all  of  the  teachings  of 
Judaism  being  based  upon  the  ethico-historical  argu- 
ment (cf.  Geschichte  d.  jued.  Philos.  I,  p.  16  f.). 
The  abstract  formulations  of  the  theoretical  doctrines 
of  Judaism  about  God,  free  will  and  retribution  were 
inacessible  to  the  masses  of  the  people;  and  if  prophets 
and  writers  had  any  hope  at  all  of  being  able  to  convey 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  83 

to  the  people  at  large  anything  that  might  help 
them  to  grasp  those  doctrines,  it  was  only  by  availing 
themselves  of  the  interest  with  which  meditations  on 
the  national  history  always  appealed  to  the  hearts  of 
the  people.  While  the  people  were  listening  to  the 
beloved  tales  of  the  early  days  of  the  nation,  there 
was  a  favorable  opportunity  to  conceive  those  tales 
from  a  higher  aspect  and  thus  to  convey  to  the  people 
the  desired  ideals  and  ideas.  And  also  in  this  the 
Deuteronomic  Book  of  the  Covenant  represents  the 
consummation  of  the  entire  development.  The 
theoretical  teachings  of  Judaism  are  explained  here 
in  an  historical  introduction  and  strengthened  by 
historical  arguments.  And  both  of  them  together,  the 
theoietical  principles  and  the  higher  conception  of 
history,  are  presented  as  both  introduction  to  and 
basis  of  the  law. 

The  law  makes  up  a  part  of  literature,  and  some 
particular  laws  had  already  to  be  treated  above,  in 
the  discussion  of  the  principles  and  forms  of  religion 
and  culture.  However,  this  question  must  be 
resumed  and  completed  under  its  own  aspect: 

We  have  already  mentioned  the  fact  that  the 
Dueteronomic  law  is  arranged  according  to  the  four 
theoretical  principles  treated  in  the  introduction  of  the 
book  of  Deuteronomy:  God,  prophecy,  free  will,  and 
retribution.  Furthermore  we  have  already  seen  what 
influence  the  development  of  the  God-conception  and 
of  the  concept  of  prophecy  had  upon  the  formulation 
of  the  laws  pertaining  to  these  principles.  Also  as 
regards  the  principle  of  retribution  we  have  seen  that 
the  reformulation  of  this  principle  found  expression  in 


84  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


corresponding  laws.  Here  we  will  show  in  addition 
that  the  firm  formulation  of  the  principle  of  free  will, 
too,  mirrors  itself  in  the  spirit  of  the  Deuteronomic 
laws;  and  again,  that  the  principle  of  retribution  is, 
in  general,  much  clearer  in  Deuteronomy,  owing  to  its 
clearer  conception  of  free  will.  Of  course,  there  are 
no  specific  practical  laws  which  reflect  directly  the 
theoretical  principle  of  free  will.  Yet,  there  are 
manifold  ways  in  which  the  workings  of  this  principle 
are  noticeably  revealed.  For  one  thing,  one  of  the 
distinctions  of  Deuteronomy  is  its  effort  to  base  the 
binding  power  of  the  law  upon  knowledge  and  love; 
this  in  spite  of  the  great  emphasis  laid  upon  the 
principle  of  retribution.  This  principle,  of  course,  is 
being  appealed  to  again  and  again  as  to  the  most 
efficacious  driving  motive  in  the  heart  of  man.  But 
at  the  same  time  the  ideal  of  Deuteronomy  is  to  elevate 
the  fear  of  individual  punishment  and  the  hope  for 
individual  reward  to  that  high  degree  of  understanding 
in  which  the  workings  of  divine  providence  are  admired 
and  loved  even  in  those  of  its  phases,  in  which  the 
individual  is  made  to  forego  his  own  reward,  or  to 
suffer  for  the  sins  of  others  in  accordance  with  the 
principle  of  national  and  universal  mutual  responsi- 
bility. What  Deuteronomy  calls  love  of  God  means 
the  liberation  of  the  will  from  individual  fear  and 
individual  hope,  replacing  them  by  the  recognition  of 
the  idea  of  national  and  universal  retribution,  and  the 
love  for  the  workings  of  divine  providence  in  accord- 
ance with  this  idea.  In  the  command:  "Thou 
shalt  love  JHVH  thy  God."  the  principle  of  free  will 
appears  in  the  form  of  a  law.     In  a  more  tangible  form 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  85 

the  command  of  free  will  finds  its  expression  in  the 
greater  independence  of  the  judges.  There  was  some 
speculation  about  the  question  why  Deuteronomy 
failed  to  embody  the  detailed  laws  found  in  the  first 
Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  XXI  and  XXII)  in  the 
province  of  civil  and  penal  jurisdiction.  The  best 
explanation  of  this  omission  seems  to  be  that  the 
Deuteronomic  law  confines  itself  to  the  principles  of 
justice,  leaving  the  working  out  of  the  details  and 
the  specific  application  to  the  free  judgment  of  the 
judiciary.  The  principle  of  ius  talionis,  evidently 
dominant  in  the  first  Book  of  the  Covenant  (cf. 
particularly  Ex.  XXI,  23-25),  retreats  before  the 
principle  of  greater  freedom.  The  purpose  of  punish- 
ing is  no  more  vengeance  and  retribution  per  se,  but 
rather  the  removal  of  the  evil  and  the  warning  of  all 
who  might  feel  prompted  to  transgress  the  law  (cf. 
Deut.  XIII,  12;  XVII,  12.  13;  XIX,  20;  XXI,  21). 
The  law  of  retaliation  rests  primarily  on  responsibility 
as  mere  accountability  of  the  acting  individual,  no 
matter  whether  or  not  his  will  is  really  free.  On  the 
other  hand,  retribution  as  removal  of  the  evil  and 
warning  to  those  whose  will  may  become  affected  by 
the  presence  of  one  who  committed  a  wrong  with 
impunity,  is  based  wholly  on  the  genuine  idea  of  free 
will.  The  law  of  retaliation  can  easily  be  fixed  in  its 
details:  "an  eye  for  an  eye,"  *  'whatever  a  man  does 
shall  be  done  unto  him."  Not  so  the  law  of  removal 
and  warning  .  The  spirit  of  this  law  requires  that,  in 
penal  as  well  as  in  civil  matters,  all  conditions  relevant 
to  the  individual  cases  be  considered  in  all  their 
manifoldness  and  complexity.     Therefore  the  details 


86  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


of  the  law  are  omitted  and  left  to  the  free  judgment 
of  the  contemporary  judges  (XVI,  18  f.  and  XVII, 
8-13;  cf.  2  Chr.  XIX,  5-11).  It  is,  however,  the  most 
important  of  the  laws  based  on  the  principle  of 
retribution,  the  law  on  capital  punishment,  in  which 
the  progress  in  the  formulation  of  this  principle  makes 
itself  felt  most  strongly.  The  law  of  Deuteronomy  is 
the  first  in  which  we  find  the  death  penalty  on  adultery 
in  accordance  with  the  rigourous  emphasis  laid  by  it 
on  sexual  holiness  (cf.  above  as  to  its  conception  of 
early  history).  But  at  the  same  time  it  is  this  code 
in  which  we  find  capital  punishment  reduced  to  what 
maybe  considered  the  minimum  for  that  period :  There 
are  a  number  of  crimes  on  which  the  death  penalty  is 
set  in  the  first  Book  of  the  Covenant  which  are 
omitted  in  Deuteronomy  (these  crimes  are :  beating  or 
cursing  parents,  adbuction  of  man,  killing  a  slave 
(while  exercising  disciplinary  rights),  criminal  negli- 
gence in  the  care-taking  of  one's  ox  which  resulted  in 
a  man  being  gored  to  death,  and  sexual  intercourse 
with  animals).  The  Deuteronomic  law,  on  the  other 
hand,  knows  of  the  death  penalty  only  in  three  kinds 
of  capital  crimes:  murder,  idolatry,  and  sexual  crimes 
(each  one  of  the  eleven  cases  of  capital  punishment  in 
Deuteronomy  is  reduceable  to  one  of  these  three). 
In  addition  to  this,  Deuteronomy  opposes  the  injunc- 
tion of  the  first  Book  of  the  Covenant  according  to 
which  the  court  itself  is  the  executor  in  all  cases  of 
capital  punishment,  ordaining  instead  that  the 
blood  revenger  should  be  entrusted  with  the  execution 
in  all  cases  in  which  there  is  such  a  person  whom  the 
court  can  consider  so  directly  affected  by  the  ciime 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  87 

that  he  has  a  claim  upon  the  rights  of  self-defence,  as 
it  were,  (applying  to  murder  and  to  four  cases  of  sexual 
crime).  Thus  the  tendency  to  eliminate  court 
execution  as  far  as  possible  is  apparent.  This  is  the 
first  phase  of  a  movement  which  later  developed  into 
the  postulate  of  abolishing  capital  punishment.  On 
the  extension  line  of  the  idea  that  God  rules  the  world 
without  intermediation  of  angels,  there  lies  the  post- 
ulate, that  no  man,  be  he  even  the  supreme  judge  on 
earth,  shall  dare  dispose  of  the  life  of  his  fellowman, 
unless  he  is  acting  in  actual  defence  of  his  own  life. 
Between  this  latter  standpoint  and  the  one  represented 
by  the  first  Book  of  the  Covenant,  Deuteronomy 
forms  a  middle  phase  in  that  it  extends  the  sphere  of 
self-defense  and  permits  even  the  execution  by  the 
courst  itself  wherever  there  is  none  to  take  the  part  of 
the  revenger  (cf.  my  Gesch.  d.  jued.  Philos.  II,  1,  p. 
125-138). 

And  there  is  another  question  in  which  the  new 
formulation  of  the  principle  of  retribution  was  of 
evident  influence.  We  refer  to  the  question  of  sacri- 
fices. We  have  spoken  above  of  the  efforts  toward 
centralization  of  the  sacrificial  cult  in  connection  with 
the  monotheistic  formulation  of  the  God-conception. 
Here  it  is  the  question  of  the  sacrificial  cult  in  general 
that  we  are  concerned  with.  We  meet  very  often  with 
rather  slighting  utterances  about  sacrifices  in  the 
prophets.  This  led  many  biblical  scholars  to 
form  the  view  that  the  prophets  were  opposed  to  the 
sacrificial  cult  altogether.  Many  went  so  far  as  to 
speak  of  two  different  schools  and  two  different 
Thoroth,  the  priestly  Tor  ah,  which  was  hardly  concerned 


88  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

with  the  ethical  law,  and  the  prophetic  Torah,  which 
expounded  ethical  laws  only,  to  the  exclusion  of  all 
ritual  laws  in  general  and  to  the  disdain  of  the  sacri- 
ficial cult  in  particular.  These  two  schools,  it  is 
further  stated,  entered  a  compromise  in  the  end,  the 
result  of  which  is  our  Torah.  This  view  has  no 
backing  in  scripture  and  is  altogether  untenable.  It 
is  true  that  the  prophets  often  express  themselves  in  a 
manner  disrespectful  to  sacrifices,  but  in  all  instances 
their  intention  is  clearly  to  protest  that  sacrifices 
alone,  without  moral  improvement,  are  of  no  religious 
value  and  had  better  be  omitted.  Opposition  on  the 
part  of  the  prophets  to  all  the  sacrifices  prescribed  for 
certain  periods  and  occasions  by  the  authoritative 
Book  of  the  Covenant  of  the  time,  is  entirely  out  of  the 
question.  The  only  thing  we  admit,  is  that  they  were 
making  light  not  only  of  private,  but  also  of  public 
sacrifices  as  long  as  they  were  not  accompanied  by 
religious  contrition  and  moral  improvement  (cf.  my 
Gesch.  d.  jued.  Philos.  II,  1,  p.  124.  221).  Now,  while 
we  believe  that  the  opposition  of  the  prophets  was  thus 
exaggerated,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  prophets 
had  their  misgivings  about  sacrifices,  scenting  in 
them  a  certain  danger  to  the  moral  life  of  the  people. 
The  people  were  only  too  ready  to  rate  the  sacrifices 
from  the  viewpoint  of  retribution.  Through  the 
offering  of  a  sacrifice  they  felt  their  consciences  alleavi- 
ated,  considering  the  sacrifice  as  a  legitimate  compensa- 
tion for  official  indulgence  to  sin  and  wrongdoing. 
Indeed,  a  closer  orientation  in  the  sources  reveals  a 
certain  development  in  the  attitude  of  the  prophets  to 
some  of  the  private  sacrifices: 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  89 

Ancient  nations  in  general  and  Semitic  tribes  in 
particular  had  a  certain  systematized  ritual  in  which 
definite  sacrifices  were  prescribed  for  definite  sins  of 
the  individual.  Now  the  fact  that  in  the  first  Book 
of  the  Covenant  only  public  sacrifices  and  "thy  burnt 
offerings  and  thy  peace-offerings,  thy  sheep  and  thine 
oxen"  are  spoken  of  (Ex.  XX,  24; XXIII,  17-18),while 
there  is  not  the  slighest  hint  at  the  institution  of  the  in- 
dividual sin-offering,  can  be  interpreted  in  more  than 
one  way.  We  could  think  there  was  no  need  for  any 
prescription,  as  the  sin-offering  was  regulated  by  a 
special  law  in  the  possession  of  the  priests,  as  found, 
for  instance,  in  Lev.  I-VII  (a  collection  of  laws  which, 
while  later  embodied  into  the  Priestly  Code,  evidently 
belongs  to  the  oldest  material  which  entered  that  late 
code;  and  also  other  passages  about  the  ritual  of  the 
sin-offering  may  be  presumed  to  have  been  in  posses- 
sion of  the  priests).  In  support  of  this  view  we  could 
refer  to  the  fact  that  the  institution  of  sin-offering 
actually  existed  in  both  Israel  and  Juda  (2  Ki.  XII, 
17;  Hos.  IV,  8).  Another  explanation  would  be  that 
the  sin-offering  as  a  legally  defined  institution  had 
developed  just  in  the  period  of  the  Kings.  But  the 
absolute  silence  of  the  first  Book  of  the  Covenant 
about  this  institution,  the  ordinance  that  money  for 
sin-offerings  should  not  be  brought  to  the  "Hoiise 
of  JHVH,"  but  be  handed  in  (privately)  to  the 
priests,  who  then  took  care  of  the  offering  in  a  private 
way,  as  it  were  (2  Ki.  ibid.),  and  finally  the  opposition 
of  Hosea  specifically  against  this  kind  of  sacrifice 
(IV,  8;  VIII,  11;  X,  2-8;  XIV,  1-3;  repentance,  not 
sacrifice!) — all  of  these  facts  render  it  highly  probable 


90  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

that  there  was  a  strong  opposition  against  the  indi- 
vidual sin-offering  long  before  the  Deuteronomic 
Covenant,  and  that  it  was  this  very  opposition  that 
brought  about  the  peculiar  position  of  the  sin-offeiing, 
being,  as  it  were,  officially  ignored,  but  tolerated  as  a 
private  affair  to  be  settled  between  priest  and  sinner. 
This  is  evidently  also  the  attitude  of  Deuteronomy: 
The  prescriptions  about  public  statutory  and  private 
free  offerings  are  more  numerous  and  more  specific 
in  Deuteronomy  than  in  the  first  Book  of  the  Covenant, 
but  the  obligatory  sin-offering  is  devisedly  ignored. 
They  could  not  possibly  enact  a  law  prohibiting  the 
sin-offering,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  it  could  not  be 
granted  the  character  of  a  legal  institution.  For  this 
would  mean  to  enter  a  compromise  with  sin,  to 
sanction  legally  the  degradation  of  the  principle  of 
retribution.  The  sinner,  this  is  the  attitude  of 
Deuteronomy  in  this  question,  should  repent,  other- 
wise due  visitation  shall  surely  come  upon  him 
(cf.  Hosea). 

Coming  from  the  outlined  picture  of  religious  and 
cultural  life  in  Israel  to  the  question  of  the  attitude  to 
the  outside  world,  we  find  the  answer,  as  far  as  the 
large  masses  are  concerned,  given  in  the  mere  facts: 
There  was  a  certain  Semitic  communion  of  culture, 
in  which  Israel  and  Juda  were  also  included.  At  the 
same  time,  however,  the  prophets  and  the  spiritual 
leaders  of  the  people  succeeded  in  producing  within 
this  general  Semitic  culture  certain  cultural  and 
religious  traits  of  a  marked  Israelitish  or  Judean 
peculiarity.  As  to  the  theoretical  postulates  of  the 
prophets,  to  wit,  the  idea  of  the  Selection  of  Israel,  it  is 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  91 

this  what  we  have  found,  upon  thourough  orienta- 
tion in  the  sources: 

Often  "the  nations"  appear  as  an  object  of  abomi- 
nation to  prophets  and  lawgivers,  insamuch  as  these 
latter  had  to  beware  lest  too  close  a  communion  of 
culture,  especially  intermarriage,  with  the  surround- 
ing nations,  induce  the  Israelites  to  idolatory.  Yet,  the 
nations  were  to  the  prophets  not  only  the  object  of 
their  worry,  but  also  that  of  a  much  deeper  concern : 
What  was  the  divine  intention  with  those  '  'other 
nations?"  Are  they  merely  to  serve  as  contrast  to 
give  more  emphasis  to  the  selection  of  Israel?  Or, 
is  there  any  plan  of  JHVH's  in  which  the  other 
nations,  too,  play  a  worthy  part? 

The  question  involved  was:  Universalism  or 
national-religious  exclusiveness  ? 

To  be  sure,  a  certain  friendly  attitude  towards 
other  nations  had  often,  by  virtue  of  prevailing 
political  relations,  to  be  admitted  even  by  the  ex- 
treme particularists,  as  can  easily  be  seen  from  the 
narratives  about  David,  Solomon,  Elijah  and  Elisha. 
But  the  first  universalistic  thoughts  of  a  really  great 
conception  we  meet  with  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  are 
those  in  the  prophecies  of  Amos: 

The  call  to  prophesy  Amos  considers  as  a  mission 
to  Israel  (VII,  15),  as,  indeed,  he  gives  clear  expression 
to  the  idea  of  Israel's  selection  (III,  2),  an  idea  which 
he  bases  on  the  first  Book  of  the  Covenant  (II,  4).. 
But  the  general  character  of  his  prophecy  is  never- 
theless as  universal  as  the  "Torah  of  JHVH",  for  the 
violation  of  which  he  blames  the  people.  His  word 
of  rebuke  and  warning  addresses  itself  not  only  to  Israel, 


92  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

but  also  to  all  other  nations  in  his  political  horizon. 
Moreover,  he  addresses  himself  first  to  the  nations 
(I,  3;  II,  3;  cf.  IX,  7),  directing  then  the  same  warning 
to  Israel  (II,  4  f.).  And  not  only  for  their  iniquities 
against  Israel  does  the  prophet  blame  the  other 
nations,  but  just  as  emphatically  for  the  iniquities 
they  committed  against  each  other  (I,  6,  9;  II,  1). 
Justice  from  nation  to  nation  was  the  first  great  postu- 
late of  this  universalistic  prophet,  convinced  that 
justice  from  individual  to  individual  within  the  state 
or  the  nation  would  never  be  firmly  established  unless 
it  were  covered  by  the  greater  justice,  justice  from 
nation  to  nation.  In  accordance  with  this,  his 
messianic  outlook,  too,  is  of  a  highly  universalistic 
character,  embracing  all  nations  with  equal  emphasis. 
In  spite  of  the  many  moral  shortcomings  for  which  the 
prophet  so  vigorously  rebukes  his  contemporaries  in 
Israel,  he  was  in  unshaken  hopes  that  in  the  end  they 
would  return  to  God  and  so  become  worthy  of  the 
great  mission  assigned  to  them,  the  mission  of  leading 
the  other  nations  to  the  recognition  of  God,  so  that 
they,  too,  learn  to  live  according  to  the  principles  of 
ethical  monotheism  (V,  14.  15;  IX,  11-12).  This 
far-reaching  universalism  of  Amos  is  accounted  for 
by  two  circumstances:  First  there  was  no  Ba'al- 
worship  in  Israel  at  the  time  of  Amos.  Among  the 
bitter  accusations  of  the  prophet  against  his  contem- 
poraries there  is  none  on  the  score  of  Ba'al-worship. 
Evidently  the  effect  of  Jehu's  reform  in  suppressing 
the  Baalim  (2  Ki.  X,  18-28)  was  still  lasting.  Secondly, 
Israel  at  the  time  of  Jeroboam  the  Second  was  a 
politically  independent  state  of  considerable  power 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  93 


(2  Ki.  XIV,  25-27).  The  political  independence 
enhanced  the  prophet  in  his  hope  that  there  would  be 
no  return  to  extreme  idolatry.  And  this  hope  in  turn 
furthered  the  great  idea  that  the  national-religious 
exclusiveness  concomitant  to  the  idea  of  the  selection 
is  but  a  means  to  a  great  end,  this  latter  being  uniting 
all  nations  with  Israel  to  one  Covenant  of  Nations  on 
the  basis  of  ethical  monotheism. 

The  extent  to  which  the  circumstances  mentioned 
are  responsible  for  the  universalism  of  Amos,  will  be 
even  more  readily  seen  when  we  proceed  to  consider 
the  attitude  of  Hosea,  the  younger  contemporary  and 
fellow-prohpet  of  Amos.  In  his  time  the  great  peril, 
the  Assyrian  world-empire,  was  menacingly  on  the 
advance.  The  nation  was  divided  in  two  parties, 
the  Assyrian,  who  considered  submission  to  the  great 
world-power  the  only  salvation  from  destruction,  and 
the  Egyptian,  who  were  seeking  an  alliance  with 
Egypt,  with  whose  help  they  hoped  to  make  a  last 
stand  against  Assyria  (V,  13;  VII,  11;  VIII,  9; 
IX,  3.6;  X,  6;  XI,  5;  XII,  2).  Especially  there  was 
great  political  confusion  after  the  death  of  Jereboam 
the  Second  and  the  half-year  reign  of  Zechariah,  the 
last  king  of  the  house  of  Jehu.  Now  comes  the  time 
of  assassinations  of  kings,  Shallum  assassinates 
Zechariah  and  succeeds  him  for  one  month,  Meneham 
assassinates  Shallum  and  usurps  the  throne,  but  re- 
mains a  mock-king,  submitting  to  the  sovereignty  of 
the  Assyrian  king  from  whom  he  had  to  buy  the  crown 
of  Israel  (2  Ki.  XV,  19).  And  the  more  the  political 
influence  of  Assyria  continues  to  grow,  the  more 
powerful  becomes  its  cultural  and  religious  influence. 


94  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Indeed,  Hosea's  prophecies  are  full  of  bitter  accusa- 
tions of  the  people  on  the  score  of  the  redounding  wave 
of  passion  for  the  Ba'alim  and  their  services  (II, 
10.15.18.19;  III,  1;  IV,  12.17  a.).  These  desolate 
circumstances  caused  Hosea  to  abandon  all  universal- 
istic  hopes  so  enthusiastically  cherished  by  his  older 
contemporary.  Hosea  is  an  extreme  particularist. 
There  is  nothing  of  messianic-universalistic  hopes  in 
his  prophecies.  On  the  contrary,  Hosea  zealously 
denounces  any  and  all  communion  of  culture  between 
Ephriam  and  other  nations  (VII,  8).  Quite  natural, 
how  could  he  cherish  any  hope  for  an  Israel  leading  the 
nations  unto  JHVH  in  the  face  of  the  sad  reality, 
Israel  being  dependent  on  other  nations  and  following 
them  in  the  worship  of  idols?  Hosea  considers  the 
Covenant  of  Sinai  as  broken,  the  first  Book  of  the 
Covenant  as  desecrated  (I,  9;  VI,  7;  VIII,  1.12),  and 
longs  for  a  renewal  of  the  Covenant  (II,  21-25): 
A  renewal  of  the  Covenant  with  God  always  means  a 
more  intense  national  concentration  and  a  stronger 
emphasis  on  religious  exclusiveness.  The  same  idea 
we  find  expressed  also  by  another  prophet  of  that 
period  (Zech.  ch.  XI  and  XII,  7-9).  He  draws  a 
picture  of  the  chaotic  political  conditions  of  the  time 
of  "three  shepherds  in  one  month"  (XI,  8),  and, 
expressly  giving  up  the  great  universal  idea  of  com- 
munion with  all  nations  (XI,  10),  he  gives  voice  to 
the  longing  for  a  renewal  of  the  Covenant,  in  words 
identical  with  those  of  Hosea  (comp.  XIII,  9  with 
Hos.  II,  25;  cf.  Tholdoth  I,  p.  30). 

In  Juda  the  universal  messainic  idea  appears  to 
have  been  more  powerful  than  in  Israel.     Isaiah  does 


SINAI  TO  DEUTERONOMY  95 

complain  of  idolatry,  and  also  the  political  con- 
ditions leave  much  to  be  desired,  the  kingdom  of 
Juda  being  menaced  at  the  time  by  Sanherib.  But 
unlike  the  prophets  of  Israel  who  themselves  were 
gravitating  to  Jerusalem,  the  prophets  of  Juda  were 
preaching  to  a  people  which,  sin-laden  as  it  was,  has 
been  camping  around  its  national  center.  This  may 
account  for  the  undiminished  cultivation  of  the 
universal  messianic  ideal  in  spite  of  the  sad  conditions 
of  the  immediate  present.  All  nations  will,  without 
having  to  give  up  their  separate  national  existence, 
pilgrim  to  the  mountain  of  the  house  of  JHVH  to 
join  Israel  in  the  worship  of  JHVH  and  to  learn  his 
ways  (Is.  II,  2-4  =  Mi.  IV,  1-3;  Is.  XI,  10;  XVIII,  7; 
XIX,  18-25).  This  hope  must  have  been  even  more 
enhanced  after  the  liberation  from  the  Assyrian  peril. 
And  even  the  great  backsliding  in  the  long  reign  of 
Menasseh  was  not  enough  to  shake  this  ideal  hope. 
Zephaniah,  whose  activity  coincides  in  time  with  the 
preparation  and  the  enactment  of  the  Deuteronomic 
Covenant,  hoped  that  JHVH  would  call  upon  all 
nations  to  participate  in  the  Covenant,  that  all 
nations  would  respond  to  this  call,  "and  that  all 
Isles  of  the  Nations,  each  one  from  its  own  place,  will 
worship  Him"  (II,  10.11;  III,  8.9). 

This,  however,  is  the  last  universal-messianic 
utterance  calling  upon  the  nations  to  join  Israel  in  the 
worship  of  JHVH  as  individual  national  entities, 
i.  e.,  without  submerging  and  losing  their  identity 
in  Israel.  In  post-Deuteronomic  times  the  messianic 
hope  receives  a  new  meaning. 


Third  Chapter. 

FROM  THE  DEUTERONOMIC  COVENANT 
THE  COVENANT  OF  ESRA  (444  B.  I 

THE  essential  characteristics  of  this  period  is  the 
cosmological  development  of   the    G 
tion.     The  pre-Deuteronomic  teachings  of  the  proph- 
ets  were    based   on    pure  ethical   monotheism.     ". 
post-Deuteronomic    teachings,    on    the    other    hand, 
were  conceived  on  an  ethico-cosmologica.        -  -    with 
a  prevailing  tendency  to  emphasize  the  cosmological 
aspect.     For  not  only  is  the  God-conception  g 
richer  in  its  contents  through  the  formulation  of  the 
monotheistic  theory  of  creation,  but  even  the  ethical 
attributes    of    God    receive    a    certain    cosmolo^ 
touch.     The  ethical  outlook  upon  lij  Leben- 

sanschauung",  in  which  the  teachings  of  the  prophets 
exhausted  themselves  in  pre-Deuteronomic  times,  is 
being  enlarged  in  the  following  period  so  as  to  com- 
prise a  full  ethico-cosmological  outlook  upon  the 
world,  a  "Weltanschauung".  The  ethical  sysl 
life  is  being  founded  upon  a  cosmological  basis,  by 
which  process  Judaism  develops  its  meta; 
element  to  a  greater  extent  than  before. 

It  is  under  this  chief  aspect  that  the  development 
of  biblical  Judaism  in  the  subsequent  period  may  be 
most  adequately  conceived  and  presented, 
problems  and  phenomena  to  be  treated  are  the  same 
as  in  the  preceding  period,  owing  to  which  fact  we  will 
be  able  generally  to  observe  in  the  dis      --  this 

period  the  same  ord~-  we  observed  in  the 


98  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

ceding.  However,  the  possibilities  of  development 
are  more  numerous  in  the  present  period,  the  opposing 
elements  more  intense.  The  old  controversy  between 
adherents  and  opponents  of  the  belief  in  angels  as 
intermediators  'never  ceases,  but  now  new  complica- 
tions are  added  by  the  advent  of  the  monotheistic 
theory  of  creation.  This  new  doctrine  caused  the 
old  controversy  to  be  taken  up  with  new  vigor  and 
tension.  On  the  other  hand,  however,  it  was  just 
this  endeepening  of  the  problems  involved  which  called 
for  new  ways  of  solving  the  new  difficulties  and  of 
adjusting  the  new  situation.  The  opposing  views 
either  resolved  into  harmony  in  a  higher  unity  or  they 
were  pushed  to  the  background  by  compromises 
entered  into  for  practical  purposes.  One  of  the  con- 
sequences of  this  situation  is  that  the  individual 
personalities  actively  engaged  in  the  development 
of  things,  be  they  or  be  they  not  known  by  name, 
stand  out  more  boldly  than  in  the  preceding  period. 
The  present  period  is  not  only  richer  in  personalities 
and  literary  units  engaged  in  the  controversies,  but 
also  maturer  in  the  exhaustive  treatment  of  the 
problems,  as  also,  and  particularly,  in  the  relatively 
systematic  way  in  which  views  and  thoughts  are  de- 
veloped. This  is  evidently  to  be  brought  in  connec- 
tion with  the  fact  that  the  controversies  and  develop- 
ments alluded  to  are  largely  taking  place  in  the  exile. 
To  be  sure,  all  those  ideas  and  postulates  around  which 
the  development  swings,  have  for  their  object  the 
new  state  expected  in  the  near  future.  Nevertheless, 
the  fact  that  at  persent  the  firm  ground  of  reality  is 
lacking  under  the  feet  of  those  who  try  to  create  the 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  99 

constitution  of  the  future  state  in  accordance  with 
their  principles,  gives  the  development  a  certain 
tendency  toward  the  abstract,  theoretical  and  radical. 
It  is  easier  to  be  radical  in  your  postulates  when  you 
do  not  have  to  consider  the  possibility  of  being  taken 
at  your  word  and  entrusted  with  the  practical  task 
of  carrying  out  those  postulates.  Again,  some  phe- 
nomena in  the  cultural  life  of  the  people  in  the  present 
period  do  not  press  to  the  fore  as  intensely  as  the 
parallel  phenomena  in  the  preceding  period.  In 
matters  religious  the  Jews  in  the  exile  were  much  better 
than  they  were  while  in  their  own  country.  In 
matters  of  no  direct  religious  bearing,  however,  they 
were  naturally  absorbed  by  their  environment  (we 
know  that  many  an  element  in  the  sphere  of  the 
religiously  indifferent  customs  accepted  in  those  days 
has  come  to  be  considered  later  as  a  genuine  part  of 
Jewish  ritual).  Of  course,  there  was  a  remnant  left 
in  Palestine.  But  this  remnant,  though  it  most  likely 
was  larger  than  the  "Golah",  and  certainly  much 
larger  than  it  is  generally  believed  to  have  been, 
really  seems  to  have  been  made  up  of  inferior  elements. 
We  have  but  little  information  about  them,  and  that 
little  we  owe  to  writers  in  the  exile,  if  indeed  it  does 
not  belong  already  to  the  later  period  when  the 
returning  exiles  brought  new  life  to  their  old  home. 
It  seems,  indeed,  to  have  been  the  case  as  tradition 
has  it,  that  all  those  who  were  possessed  of  any- 
thing like  position,  esteem,  property,  knowledge 
and  ideals,  went,  by  compulsion  or  from  their  own 
volition,  into  the  exile  in  order  to  help  prepare  the 
new  future  from  there. 


100  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

These  peculiarities  of  the  present  period  make  it 
advisable  to  group  the  problems  around  the  personali- 
ties or  literary  units  as  their  centers  and  present  them 
in  the  order  observed  in  the  preceding  period.  This, 
of  course,  can  be  carried  out  fully  only  in  respect  to 
those  literary  units  which  call  for  an  exhaustive 
orientation  in  all,  or,  at  least,  in  most,  of  the  important 
questions  which  are  dealt  with  here.  Such  units,  on 
the  other  hand,  as  furnish  material  but  to  some  par- 
ticular questions,  will  be  fitly  linked,  in  their  chrono- 
logical order,  with  the  larger  units  as  contributing 
elements,  thus  asuring  a  freer  and  clearer  outlook 
from  the  aspects  won  in  the  more  comprehensive 
orientations. 

1.     Jeremiah. 

The  prophetic  career  of  Jeremiah  extends  over  a 
period  of  at  least  forty  years  (626-586)  which  may  be 
divided  into  two  distinct  phases.  In  the  first  of 
these  Jeremiah  stands  more  or  less  on  the  ground 
prepared  by  Isaiah,  whom  we  have  to  consider  the 
most  eminent  representative  of  pre-Jeremian  Judaism. 
He  differs  from  him,  however,  in  the  question  of 
angels  whose  existence,  or,  at  any  rate,  whose  func- 
tion as  mediators  between  God  and  man,  Jeremiah 
denies.  And  also  in  the  opposition  to  the  attribute  of 
Long-Suffering  Jeremiah  is  much  more  decided  than 
was  Isaiah.  The  difference  of  view,  favored  by  the 
conditions  of  the  time,  developed  and  condensed  into 
a  new  formulation  of  the  God-conception  by  Jeremiah. 
This  great  turn  in  the  prophetic  activity  of  Jeremiah, 
as  in  the  development  of  Judaism  in  general,  takes 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  101 

place  in  about  the  middle  of  the  prophet's  career,  in 
the  first  years  of  the  reign  of  Jojakim  (608).  The 
second  period  in  Jeremiah's  activity  may  be  desig- 
nated the  ethico-cosmological,  as,  in  general,  we  have 
to  call  the  new  period  in  Judaism  dawning  with 
Jeremiah,  in  contradistinction  of  the  pure  ethical 
monotheism  in  pre-Jeremiah  times.  By  that  time 
Juda  had  been  for  some  time  already  under  the 
influence  of  Neo-Babylonia.  Through  this  new  con- 
tact with  the  culture  of  their  old  native  country  the 
interest  of  the  Jews  for  cosmogonic  questions  was  re- 
awakened. The  eternal  passion  of  the  people  for 
idols  had  never  been  overcome  by  the  pure  ethical 
conception  of  God.  How  much  less  could  there  be 
any  hope  to  get  along  with  the  mere  ethical  God- 
conception  at  a  time  when  the  cosmogonic  interest 
of  the  people  was  aroused,  when,  on  account  of  that 
new  interest,  the  I sh tar- worship  was  carried  on  more 
intensely  than  ever  before  (VII,  17-19;  XLIV,  15-26). 
Under  these  conditions  Jeremiah  certainly  had  suffi- 
cient reason  to  emphasize  holiness  as  a  divine  attribute. 
However,  contrary  to  our  expectations,  this  emphasis 
is  found  in  Jeremiah  chiefly  in  a  negative  way  only, 
in  that  in  his  numerous  historical  reminiscences  he 
hardly  alludes  to  anything  beyond  the  Egyptian 
period  (XXXI,  15;  XXXIII,  26;  cf.  Deut.),  while  his 
positive  utterances  on  the  idea  of  holiness  are  very 
rare  (II,  3;  XXIII,  9;  cf.  XXXI,  23).  Evidently  the 
pure  ethical  idea  of  holiness  was  not  sufficient  in  the 
view  of  Jeremiah,  after  the  experience  of  so  many 
generations  in  which  that  idea  has  utterly  failed  to 
impress  the  people.  Clearly  the  God-idea  had  to  be 


102  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

conceived  more  deeply  and  to  be  established  on  a 
larger  basis.  This  great  turn  was  accomplished  by 
Jeremiah.  The  doctrine  of  angels,  that  great  ob- 
stacle on  the  road  to  the  monotheistic  theory  of 
creation  (the  angels  were  conceived  of  as  eternal 
entities — cf.  Gen.  Ill,  22),  had  been  overcome,  the 
cosmological  interest  of  the  people  reawakened — thus 
the  essential  conditions  favoring  the  formulation  of 
the  new  God-conception  had  materialized.  This  led 
Jeremiah  to  the  conception  of  the  monotheistic  theory 
of  creation.  JHVH  is  the  sole  creator  of  all  things, 
and  his  right  upon  the  exclusive  worship  of  man  is 
indisputable.  In  connection  with  the  idea  of  God 
as  Creator  Jeremiah  endeepens  the  concept  of  JHVH 
as  the  sole,  unique,  true  entity,  designating  the 
"other  gods"  as  "non-gods"  and  "non-powers",  thus 
stripping  them  of  all  entity  and  reducing  them  to 
empty  phantoms.  Of  the  divine  attributes  Jeremiah 
presses  to  the  fore  the  attributes  of  Wisdom  and 
Might  (cf.  IX,  22,  23).  The  old  definition  of  JHVH, 
the  Thirteen  Attributes,  satisfies  him  no  more. 
This  formula  was  lacking  the  cosmological  element, 
and,  then,  too,  it  contained  some  attributes  of  mercy 
which  did  not  appeal  to  Jeremiah  even  before  he  found 
the  new  theory  of  creation,  and  which  now  were 
altogether  incompatible  with  the  rigid  justice  expected 
from  the  sole  creator  of  all  things.  Even  the  name 
of  JHVH  became  too  narrow  to  express  his  God- 
conception.  The  name  JHVH  became  too  much 
reminiscent  of  the  God  of  the  Thirteen  Attributes,  of 
too  much  mercy.  Jeremiah,  therefore,  adopts  the 
combination  J  HV H  Zebaoth  of  Isaiah  as  a  temporary 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  103 

name  of  God,  recoining  it  so  as  to  make  it  express 
his  new  theory.  JHVH  Zebaoth  to  Jeremiah  is  the 
JHVH  of  the  hosts  of  creation,  the  sole  creator  of 
the  universe,  who  insists  on  rigid  justice  in  the  world 
which  is  His,  and  His  only  (X,  10;  Jeremiah  uses 
the  name  JHVH  Zebaoth  more  often  than  any  other 
prophet,  not  less  than  68  times!).  The  Wisdom  and 
Might  of  God  manifest  themselves  in  the  first  line  in 
creation:  but  also  in  his  ruler  ship  in  the  world,  in 
Nature  (v,  13)  and  History,  especially  in  the  selection 
of  Israel  (v.  16) ;  it  is  the  same  divine  omnipotence, 
the  same  divine  wisdom  that  comes  to  manifestation: 
With  the  appearance  of  the  monotheistic  theory  of 
creation  the  divine  attributes  have  at  once  been 
translated  from  the  Ethical  into  the  Metaphysical. 

The  new  God-conception  in  turn  greatly  influ- 
enced the  formulation  of  the  other  principles.  Of 
prophecy  we  find  in  Jeremiah  the  higher  Deuteronomic 
conception,  repudiating  all  lower  mantical  forms, 
including  visions  of  angels  and  dreams  (XIV,  13-19; 
XXIII,  9-40;  XXVII,  9;  XXIX,  8).  The  calling  of 
the  prophet  is  to  lead  the  people  from  the  evil  to  the 
good  way  (XXIII,  2),  and  also  to  take  a  hand  in 
the  political  affairs  of  the  time  (I,  5-10).  The  sign  of 
the  prophet  is  prediction  of  future  events.  However, 
in  the  case  a  prophet  predicts  visitation,  God  in 
His  mercy  may  recall  the  decree,  so  that  even  the 
prediction  of  a  true  prophet  may  at  times  not  ma- 
terialize (XXIX,  8.9).  Jeremiah  deepens  the  concept 
of  prophecy  also  from  the  cosmological  viewpoint: 
As  Israel's  prophetic  calling  was  provided  for  in  the 
eternal  plan  of  creation,  so  also  the  prophet  was  ere- 


104  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

ated  for  prophecy  from  the  womb  (I,  5-19;  v.  9: 
"I  will  give  my  word  in  thy  mouth" — Deut.  XVIII, 
18;  cf.  above).  About  man's  free  will  we  find  in 
Jeremiah  certain  utterances  which  point  to  some  diffi- 
culties he  faced  in  the  question  of  the  responsibility 
of  the  individual.  Is  not  the  way  of  man  predeter- 
mined by  God?  Does  not  God  himself  lay  stumbling 
stones  in  the  way  of  the  generations,  fathers  and 
children?  And,  then  too;  is  man  perfectible  at  all? 
(VI,  21;  X,  23;  XII,  23;  XX,  7;  cf.  Deut.  XXIX,  3). 
On  the  other  hand,  the  prophet  is  by  no  means  ready 
to  give  up  the  old  fundamental  prophetic  principle 
of  free  will,  and  he  even  coins  a  new  word  (nm&?) 
to  express  the  idea  of  free  will  (VI,  16;  VII,  24;  XIII, 
10;  XVIII,  12;  XXIII,  17;  cf.  Tholdoth  p.  82-83). 
Besides,  the  postulate  of  man's  free  will  is  implied 
in  the  basic  thought  of  the  monotheistic  theory  of 
creation:  This  theory  of  creation  denies  the  reign 
of  Fatum  over  god  and  man  (X,  2).  These  contra- 
dictory tendencies  in  the  question  of  free  will  repeat 
themselves,  naturally  enough,  in  the  question  of 
retribution,  a  question  which  is  to  be  treated  in  further 
connection  with  the  soul  problem: 

From  what  was  said  above  about  Jeremiah's 
conception  of  prophecy  we  could  infer  that  the  under- 
lying concept  of  the  individual  soul  is  intensely  one 
of  substantiality.  And  this  definite  substantial  con- 
ception of  the  individual  soul  which  is  expressed 
clearly  as  an  item  of  the  new  theory  of  creation 
(XXXVIII,  16;  cf.  Is.  LVII,  16),  shows  its  direct 
influence  also  upon  the  question  of  free  will:  This 
prophet  was  called  upon  to  prophesy,  aganist  his  will, 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  105 

he  was  persuaded  by  God  to  devote  himself  to  this 
task  (XX,  7-18).  Both,  the  freedom  of  will  as  well  as 
also  the  occasional  restriction  laid  upon  it,  are  ex- 
pressed in  this  statement.  It  is  evident  that  in  the 
view  of  Jeremiah  the  individual  soul  is  subject  to 
some  definite  disposition  restricting  man's  free  will. 
This  cosmologically  endeepened  conception  of  the 
individual  soul  led  Jeremiah  (and  his  contemporaries) 
back  to  the  emphasis  on  the  principle  of  individual 
retribution  which  appears  ao  much  restricted  in 
Deuteronomy.  He  no  more  sees  his  way  clear 
before  him  to  accept  the  attribute  of  Long-suffering 
(XV,  15;  XVIII,  23;  XX,  12),  and  so  he  does  not 
hesitate  to  consider  the  view  of  the  people  of  his 
age  in  their  attitude  that  the  principle  of  national 
retribution  according  to  which  the  account  of  sin  is 
carried  from  generation  to  generation,  is  not  a  just 
one  (XXXI,  29.30);  these  two  attributes,  "long- 
suffering"  and  "visiting  the  sons  of  the  fathers  upon 
the  children"  being  in  close  connection  with  each 
other  (God  is  long-suffering  with  the  individual 
sinner,  exacting  the  full  punishment  on  later  genera- 
tions). This  lends  color  to  the  historical  phenomenon 
that  Jeremiah,  the  first  to  formulate  the  monothe- 
istic theory  of  creation,  was  also  the  first  to  formulate 
so  relentlessly  the  great  problem  of  the  ages:  why  is 
the  wicked  prosperous,  and  the  righteous  suffering? 
(XII,  1  f.).  But  the  new  theory  of  creation  not  only 
urged  new  problems  to  the  surface,  but  also  gave 
Jeremiah  the  power,  if  not  to  solve,  so  at  least,  to 
mitigate  and  to  silence  the  new  doubts  and  per- 
plexities.    JHVH    has    created    heaven    and    earth, 


106  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


nothing  is  hidden  from  His  eyes,  nothing  limits  His 
omnipotence,  and  so  surely  everything  is  all  right  in 
His  world,  He  certainly  knows  how  to  bring  harmony 
into  the  workings  of  the  two  seemingly  contradictory 
principles,  national  retribution  and  individual  re- 
sponsibility. JHVH  is  great  in  counsel  and  rich  in 
activity,  it  is  not  the  task  of  man  to  search  God 
(XXXII,  17-19).  Jeremiah,  of  course,  knew  also 
of  the  idea  of  equalizing  justice  in  a  future  world 
which  was  to  develop  in  the  wake  of  the  new  con- 
ception of  creation  (cf.  below),  but  in  this  he  remained 
on  the  ground  prepared  by  Deuteronomy:  not  one 
word  about  the  eschatological  aspect  of  justice  to 
the  individual. 

Corresponding  to  the  decisive  influence  of  Jere- 
miah's new  orientation  in  the  theoretical  principles 
of  Judaism  also  his  influence  upon  the  development 
of  the  higher  forms  of  cultural  life  was  a  very  deep 
and  potent  one.  According  to  Jeremiah's  own 
descriptions  of  the  unlawful  image-worship  the 
artistic  sense  of  the  people  in  his  time  had  attained 
a  considerable  degree  of  development.  It  is,  further- 
more, Jeremiah  who  first  mentions  wall  paintings  as 
a  form  of  artistic  expression  (XXII,  14;  more  clearly 
Ez.  XXIII,  14),  an  innovation,  evidently  imported 
from  Babylonia.  But  if  in  the  following  centuries 
the  Jewish  people,  under  the  influence  of  the  new 
teaching,  not  only  gave  up  the  unlawful  image-worship 
but  also  developed  a  certain  indifference,  nay  dis- 
inclination, toward  plastics,  it  is  Jeremiah  who  is 
responsible  for  this  change.  And  this  not  only  in 
general,  inasmuch  as  he  was  the  expounder  of  rigid 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  107 

monotheism  (as  against  the  belief  in  angels)  and  the 
originator  of  the  monotheistic  theory  of  creation, 
but  also  in  particular,  in  that  he  zealously  denounced 
all  reverence  for  relics  and  took  an  emphatic  stand 
against  all  cultivation  of  plastics  (II,  27.28;  III, 
9.16.17;  IV,  1.30;  VII,  12-19;  29.34;  X,  1-16;  XIV, 
22;  XVI,  19.20;  XVII,  2.  XIX,  5.13;  XXII,  28; 
XXVI,  6;  XXXII,  34.35;  XLIV,  8-25).  Jeremiah's 
intense  aversion  to  the  plastical  and  decorative  arts 
is  accounted  for  in  part  by  the  unlawful  cultivation 
of  those  arts  abroad  among  the  people,  as  also  by 
the  psychological  depression  of  the  prophet  due  to 
the  bitter  experiences  he  had  with  his  personal  ad- 
versaries. Indeed,  also  of  Jeremiah's  literary  form 
we  have  to  say  that  the  absence  of  marked  artistic 
motifs  in  his  prophecies  is  probably  due  to  the  un- 
toward circumstances  under  which  he  was  obliged 
to  live  and  to  work  (having  in  mind,  of  course,  par- 
ticularly the  destruction  of  his  book  and  the  restora- 
tion of  the  same  from  memory).  Nevertheless,  the 
indirect  influence  of  Jeremiah  upon  the  development 
of  Hebrew  literature  was  greater  and  more  powerful 
than  that  of  any  other  one  individual  personality. 
Pre-Jeremian  literature  was  essentially  of  an  historical 
character,  and  we  have  seen  above  that  this  was  due 
to  the  fact  that  all  religious  thinking  to  which  all 
literature  has  been  almost  entirely  devoted,  was 
purely  ethical.  All  argument  for  the  existence  of 
God  and  His  claim  upon  the  obedience  of  man  were 
of  a  providential-historical  nature.  No  argument 
from  Naturel  This  has  now  been  changed,  due  to 
the  appearance   of  Jeremiah   with   his   monotheistic 


108  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

theory  of  creation.  To  the  historical  argument  has 
now  been  added  the  cosmological,  from  natural 
phenomena.  God's  claim  on  Providence  in  History 
is  based  on  the  idea  of  monotheistic  creation,  and  it  is 
to  this  idea  that  Jeremiah  refers  the  kings  of  Edom, 
Moab,  Ammon,  Tyrus  and  Zidon  in  explanation  of 
his  opposition  to  the  joining  of  Juda  in  their  alliance 
against  Nebuchadnezzar  "my  servant"  (XXVII,  5  f.). 
God's  ethical  attributes  under  the  guidance  of  which 
history  developed  its  course,  and  the  selection  of 
Israel,  the  goal  of  the  past  and  the  new  avenue  for  the 
future,  are  considered  under  the  aspect  of  natural  law 
(XXXI,  31-36;  XXXIII,  20-26).  This  meant  the 
discovery  of  nature  in  Hebrew  literature.  The  argu- 
ment from  nature  helped  develop  interest  in  and 
insight  into  the  workings  of  nature:  The  numerous 
grand  descriptions  of  nature  in  biblical  literature  are 
all  post-Jeremian.  That  the  deeper  penetration 
into  all  problems  under  the  new,  the  cosmological, 
aspect  was  also  of  great  literary  import  is  self-evident. 
Suffice  it  to  point  to  the  fact  that  it  is  Jeremiah's 
new  aspect  to  which  Hebrew  literature  owes  the 
distinction  of  having  produced  the  first  philosophic 
dialog  in  the  literature  of  the  world,  the  Book  of  Job 
(cf.  below).  Jeremiah  is  also  the  first  prophet  of 
whose  care  for  the  preservation  of  his  literary  estate 
we  have  definite  information  (ch.  XXXIII). 

Jeremiah's  influence  upon  legislation  is  felt  partly 
in  Deuteronomy  (cf.  above),  but  also  in  his  prophecies 
there  are  ample  evidences  of  his  desire  to  have  a 
hand   in   the  shaping  of  practical   laws.     So  in   the 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  109 

Sabbath-question  (ch.  XVII;  provided  the  passage  is 
genuine)  and  in  the  question  of  slavery  (ch.  XXXIV). 
And  in  general,  Jeremiah  develops  a  formal  concept 
of  law,  independent  of  its  content  (ch.  XXXV — the 
prohibition  of  wine  to  the  Rechabim,  as  an  example  of 
faithful  adherence  to  a  paternal  injunction).  The 
later  development  warrants  the  assumption  that  this 
formal  concept  of  law  was  conceived  by  Jeremiah  in 
connection  with  his  monotheistic  theory  of  creation, 
although  there  is  no  definite  passage  in  Jeremiah  to 
this  effect  (cf.  below  to  the  Priestly  Code).  Whether 
Jeremiah  had  any  influence  upon  the  development  of 
the  institution  of  circumcision  (favored  so  much  by 
his  later  followers)  cannot  be  made  out  with  certainty 
from  the  only  passage  bearing  upon  the  subject 
(IX,  24,25).  At  any  rate,  we  may  say  of  Jeremiah, 
that  he,  the  priest-prophet  with  the  formalistic  con- 
ception of  law,  in  spite  of  the  emphasis  he  lays  upon 
ethical  law  and  social  justice  as  the  one  thing  which 
God  demands  and  expects  of  man,  was  no  opponent 
of  the  ritual  law  on  the  principle,  and  especially  that 
he  was  no  opponent  of  the  sacrificial  ritual  as  such. 
This  view,  wide-spread  though  it  may  be,  is  as  little 
true  concerning  Jeremiah,  as  it  is  concerning  other 
piophets.  This  can  best  be  shown  by  an  analysis  of 
chapter  seven,  in  which  Jeremiah  develops  his  ideas 
about  the  subject  most  fully,  ideas  which  are  often 
repeated  throughout  all  of  his  prophecies.  These 
ideas  are  as  follows: 

1.     The  City  of  JHVH  and  the  House  of  JHVH 
are  holy  and  distinguished  by  their  connection  with 


110  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

the  name  of  God  (VII,  10-14;  cf.  XXIII,  11;  XXV,  29; 
XXXI,  23;  XXXII,  34;  comp.  also  XLI,  5  and  LI, 
11.51). 

2.  God  declines  the  acceptance  of  sacrifices,  or 
does  not  receive  them  graciously,  for  three  reasons: 
First j  because  Judeans  defiled  the  House  of  JHVH 
through  idolatrous  images  and  idolatrous  sacrificial 
rites,  especially  through  the  Moloch-cult.  Second, 
because  they  indulge  in  idolatrous  practices  in  the 
land,  often  neglecting  entirely  JHVH  and  his  House. 
Third,  because  they  lead  an  immoral  and  unjust  life 
(VII,  3.5-9.17-19.30.31;  cf.  Ill,  24;  V,  19;  VI,  20; 
XI,  12;  XIV,  12;  XIX,  5;  XXXII,  31  f.;  XLIV, 
2.3.5.8.15-29). 

3.  It  is  on  account  of  the  sins  mentioned  that 
God  will  destroy  the  City  and  the  House,  or  that  he 
has  destroyed  them.  But  in  the  case  they  repent 
God  would  not  destroy  the  City  and  the  House,  or 
he  would  rebuild  them.  The  belief  of  the  Judeans 
the  Temple  of  JHVH  in  itself  had  the  power  to 
protect  them,  is  erroneous  (VII,  3-15.20.32-34;  cf. 
V,  19;  XXII,  4;  XXVI,  6;  XXXII,  31  f.;  XXXIII, 
5;  XLIV,  2f.,  15-29). 

4.  When  the  Israelites  left  Egypt  the  sacrifices 
were  not  the  first  thing  God  spoke  of  to  them,  or 
commanded  them  about,  this  being  rather  the  in- 
junction that  they  should  fulfill  the  Covenant  ac- 
cording to  which  He  was  to  be  their  God  and  they 
were  to  be  His  people,  i.  e.  that  they  should  not 
worship  (sacrifice  to)  strange  gods  and  that  they 
should  walk  in  his  ways,  leading  an  ethical  and 
religious  life.     Sacrifices  were  ordained  only  for  the 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  111 

time  after  the  conquest  of  Palestine  (VII,  21  ff.; 
cf.  Amos  V,  25;  this  view  of  the  matter  is  the  older 
tradition;  cf.  Gesch,  d.  jued.  Philos.  II,  1,  p.  124. 
216  f.). 

5.  When  the  Judeans  will  return  to  JHVH,  or 
when  JHVH  shall  have  compassion  with  the  "rem- 
nant", then  the  (prescribed)  public,  as  well  as  the 
private  free  offerings,  especially  thanks  offerings 
(comp.  below  as  to  the  later  development),  shall 
be  received  graciously  by  JHVH  (VII,  3.9b;  XVII, 
26;  XXVII,  22;  XXX,  19;  XXXI,  6.12.14;  XXXIII, 
18;  comp.  also  XXXIV,  18:  the  covenant  of  social 
justice  is  sealed  with  a  sacrifice!  Some  of  these 
passages  were  declared  to  be  not-genuine,  but  this 
was  done  by  a  petitio  principii ;  because  they  believed, 
without  warrant,  that  Jeremiah  was  an  opponent  of 
sacrifices  on  principle,  some  scholars  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  passages  expressing  any  appreciation 
of  the  sacrificial  ritual  must  necessarily  be  later 
interpolations). 

6.  There  is  nothing  in  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah 
that  would  justify  the  assumption  of  a  conscious 
contrast  between  priest  and  prophet,  to  say  nothing 
of  a  contrast  between  the  priestly  Torah  and  the 
prophetic  Torah.  Jeremiah  knows  of  no  other  dis- 
tinction than  of  that  between  good  and  bad  priests, 
as  also  between  good  (true)  and  bad  (false)  prophets. 
In  fact,  Jeremiah  scolds  the  people  for  their  ritual 
sins  with  as  much  zeal  as  for  their  moral  sins  (VII, 
4.8.9;  comp.  IV,  9;  V,  31;  VI,  13;  XXIII,  11;  XXX, 
34;  the  proverb  of  XVIII,  18,  quoted  by  Jeremiah's 
opponents,    has    nothing    to    do    with    our    subject. 


112  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

The  only  conclusion  warranted  by  this  passage  is  that 
in  practical  questions  of  the  Torah  the  people  would 
look  for  instruction  from  the  priest,  while  in  public 
or  private  affairs  outside  the  sphere  of  the  law  they 
would  look  for  a  special  revelation  of  the  "word"  of 
God  through  the  prophet,  (comp.  Ez.  VII,  26;  XXII, 
26  f.;  Zeph.  Ill,  4);  comp.  XVII,  19-27;  declared  by 
some  not  to  be  genuine).  The  only  sacrifices  which 
appear  to  have  been  opposed  by  Jeremiah,  are  the 
sin-offerings.  If  we  compare  Jeremiah  with  his  con- 
temporary Ezekiel,  the  silence  of  the  former  about  the 
institution  of  the  sin-offering  must  appear  very 
strange,  and  the  only  interpretation  permissible 
seems  to  be  the  same  as  that  applied  to  Deuteronomy 
(cf.  above  to  Deut.  and  below  to  Ezekiel),  namely 
that  Jeremiah  was  opposed  to  that  institution 
altogether. 

Jeremiah's  attitude  toward  universalism  is  quite 
in  accordance  with  what  we  would  expect  of  him  on 
the  strength  of  what  has  been  said  about  him  in  the 
preceding.  The  emphasis  laid  by  him  on  ethical 
conduct  as  the  condition  for  the  worth  of  the  ritual, 
as,  in  general,  his  monotheistic  idea  of  creation, 
would  rather  justify  the  expectation  to  find  him  among 
the  universalists.  In  fact,  we  find  with  him  utter- 
ances of  universalistic  leanings:  JHVH  has  chosen 
"His  Servant",  the  King  Nebuchadnezzar,  to  accomp- 
lish through  him  His  historic  plans  (XXVII,  5  f.). 
Jeremiah  gives  the  Jews  the  advice  to  avail  themselves, 
to  a  certain  extent,  of  civil  communion  with  Baby- 
lonia (XXIX,  5;  XXXII,  15;  XLII,  10);  he  recom- 
mends to  the  Jews  to  emulate  the  Rechabites  as  an 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  113 

example  of  faithfulness  in  the  observance  of  law 
(chap.  XXXV);  indulges  with  great  interest  in 
prophecies  "on  the  nations"  (chaps.  XLVI-XLIX), 
showing  often  great  sympathy  with  the  fate  of  those 
nations,  rising  at  times  even  to  visions  in  which  he 
sees  a  hopeful  future  for  some  of  them  (XLVII,  6; 
XLVIII,  31.36.47;  XLIX,  6.39.) 

Yet,  the  hopelessness  of  the  political  situation  and 
the  bewilderment  reigning  supreme  in  religious 
affairs,  especially  in  the  latter  part  of  Jeremiah's 
prophetic  career,  made  him  despair  of  the  possibility 
of  the  Jews  being  able  to  take  up  and  to  carry  out 
the  great  mission  of  leading  the  nations  as  such,  i.  e. 
as  distinct  national  entities,  and  making  them  confess 
JHVH  and  His  teachings.  Jeremiah,  indeed,  hopes 
that  all  nations  will  pilgrim  to  Jerusalem  to  worship 
there  the  name  of  JHVH  (III,  16.17).  But  the  mean- 
ing of  this  messianic  idea  with  Jeremiah  has  changed 
much  from  what  it  was  before.  The  nations  will 
have  not  only  to  abandon  their  idols  (XVI,  19),  but 
also  to  offer  a  positive  confession  of  faith,  in  order  to 
be  admitted  into  the  community  of  the  Jewish  people 
(XII,  15.17;  cf.  Ruth  I,  16).  Jeremiah  yearns  for  a 
new  Covenant  (cf.  XXXIV,  8.18.19)  in  which  the  law 
will  be  written  not  only  upon  (a  scroll  or  upon) 
tablets  of  stone,  but  also  upon  the  hearts  of  the 
people.1 

1  XXXI,  31-33.  The  idea  of  some  Christian  scholars  that 
Jeremiah  was  opposed  to  the  written  law,  and  thus  antici- 
pated Paulinian  antinomism,  is  not  deserving  of  refutation. 
Nevertheless  attention  may  be  called  to  the  following 
passages  where  Jeremiah  refers  to  the  written  Torah, 
especially  to  those  where  he  quotes  Deuteronomy  to  which 
he  is  supposed,  by  some  of  the  critics,  to  have  taken  a 


114  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

A  new  Covenant  meant  more  particularistic  ex- 
clusiveness,  all  in  harmony  with  Jeremiah's  outspoken 
aversion  to  all  forms  of  the  general  Semitic  cultural 
communion. 

Again,  this  new  Covenant  was  to  reunite  Juda 
and  Israel  under  the  scepter  of  David  (II,  4;  III, 
11.12;  XIII,  11;  (XVII,  26);  XXIII,  5.6;  XXIX, 
14.16;  XXX,  3.4;  XXXI,  1.18-20.27.41;  XXXI,  30. 
37-39;  XXXIII,  20-26;  cf.  L,  20.33;  LI,  5).  With 
Jeremiah  there  begins  the  reawakening  of  the  great 
hope  for  the  restoration  of  the  old  national  unity. 

hostile  attitude:  IX,  12  (cf.  XXVI,  4  and  Deut.  IV,  8-44); 
XI,  6;  XXXII,  23;  XXXIV,  8-16  (verse  8  is  a  quotation 
from  Deut.  XV,  12;)  XLIV,  23.  This  is,  furthermore,  in 
contradiction  with  the  importance  Jeremiah  attaches  to 
the  written  word,  as  manifested  in  the  great  care  he  has 
taken  to  preserve  his  prophecies  and  to  save  them  from 
destruction  for  the  benefit  of  future  generations;  cf.  XVII,  1; 
XXII,  24;  XXV,  13;  XXIX,  1  f.;  XXX,  2;  XXXII,  9-14; 
ch.  XXXVI.  Some  verses  in  this  chapter  (4.27.28.33; 
cf.  XLV,  1)  have  led  to  the  suggestion  that  Jeremiah  was 
an  illiterate.  But  this  explanation  of  the  employment  of 
Baruch  the  Scribe  by  Jeremiah  is  entirely  out  of  the  question. 
In  XXII,  9-14  it  is  expressly  stated  that  Jeremiah  himself 
wrote  and  sealed  the  deed  and  then  gave  it  to  the  official 
Baruch  for  embodiment  in  the  public  registry;  in  XXXVI, 
5,  6,  again,  Jeremiah  asks  Baruch  to  substitute  for  him  in 
reading  from  the  scroll  to  the  people  assembled  in  the 
House  of  JHVH  because  of  his  being  prevented  from  coming 
into  the  House  of  JHVH;  evidently,  had  it  not  been  for 
this  obstacle  Jeremiah  would  have  read  himself.  (Also 
LI,  60  assures  us  that  Jeremiah  could  write  himself.  The 
author  of  this  prophecy  surely  was  in  a  position  to  know 
whether  Jeremiah  was  able  to  write;  had  he  known  of 
Jeremiah's  illiteracy,  he  certainly  would  have  expressed 
himself  in  a  different  way).  The  question  why  Jeremiah 
employed  Baruch  the  Scribe,  is  irrelevant,  but  most  likely 
he  did  so  because  the  hand  of  the  skilled  scribe  was  more 
legible  and  more  fit  for  public  reading,  (cf.  XXXVI,  5). 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  115 

2.      EZEKIEL. 

The  new  ideas  and  postulates  as  laid  down  in 
Deuteronomy  failed  to  inspire  the  people.  The  Book 
of  Deuteronomy  was  indeed  called  upon  to  influence 
and  to  determine  the  character  of  Jewish  doctrine 
and  life  for  all  times.  But  it  was  destined  to  ac- 
complish this  only  in  combination  with  the  new 
cosmological  ideas  of  Jeremiah.  And  this  combina- 
tion was  the  product  of  a  process  quite  long  and 
complicated.  Before  the  ideas  of  Jeremiah  shaped 
themselves  so  definitely  as  to  develop  into  legislative 
postulates,  this  new  trend  of  thought  in  its  totality, 
comprising  the  monotheistic  emphasis  of  Deuteronomy 
with  its  opposition  against  the  angels,  as  also  the 
monotheistic  theory  of  creation  in  the  conception 
advanced  by  Jeremiah,  had  yet  to  face  the  opponents 
arisen  in  the  midst  of  the  prophets  themselves.  And 
this  struggle  was  the  harder  and  the  hotter,  as  on  the 
side  of  these  opponents,  the  conservatives,  there  was 
the  people  in  its  great  multitudes.  The  spokesman  of 
the  old  traditions  among  the  prophets  was  Ezekiel. 

It  took  some  time  before  the  opponents  of  the 
Deuteronomic  Covenant  succeeded  in  mustering 
their  forces  and  organizing  them.  It  was  in  the 
thirtieth  year  after  this  reformation  (Ez.  I,  1),  at  the 
time  when  Jeremiah  was  busy  working  out  and  spread- 
ing his  monotheistic  theory  of  creation,  that  his 
younger  contemporary  and  fellow-prophet  appeared 
at  the  head  of  the  orthodox  to  fight  the  innovations 
from  his  post  in  the  exile,  innovations  which,  al- 
though not  accepted  by  the  people  at  large,  enjoyed 
a   certain   authoritative   position   and   furnished   the 


116  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

standard  by  which  to  measure  the  religious  life  of  the 
people  as  to  its  lawfulness. 

The  return  to  the  belief  in  angels  stands  in  the 
center  of  the  movement  started  or,  rather,  organized 
by  Ezekiel.  With  great  emphasis  the  belief  in  angels 
is  being  systematized  and  brought  into  interrelation 
with  all  manifestations  of  religious  life:  The  Mer- 
cabah,  the  divine  Throne  and  Court,  formed  by  angels, 
is  the  source  from  which  emanate  all  divine  powers 
in  nature,  providence,  sanctuary,  law  and  history 
(I;  II,  12-14.22-24;  chaps.  VIII-X;  XI,  22-24;  XXVIII 
14;  XL,  18  f. ;  XLIII,  1  f.).  With  the  belief  in  angels 
also  the  interest  in  the  early  history  was  reawakened. 
With  Jeremiah,  too,  we  find  some  allusions  to  the 
pre-Egyptian  history  of  Israel.  This  is  generally 
due  to  Jeremiah's  cosmological  conception  of  the  idea 
of  selection  of  Israel,  which  made  it  necessary  for  him 
to  go  back  to  the  beginnings  of  the  history  of  the 
human  race.  Also  Ezekiel  may  be  presumed  to 
have  been  interested  in  early  history  on  account  of 
his  cosmogonical  interest.  For  in  spite  of  his  op- 
position to  Jeremiah's  doctrine  of  creation,  and 
partly  because  of  it,  Ezekiel  had  to  meet  the  re- 
awakened cosmogonic  interest  of  the  people,  which 
he  did  by  a  refashioning  of  some  Babvlonian  cosmo- 
gonic myths  in  the  spirit  of  monotheism;  as  indeed  the 
Mercabah  (especially  in  ch.  I)  has  been  recognized  to 
be  a  reflex  of  cosmogonic  legends  (cf.  Tholdoth  I, 
p.  68  f.).  But,  if,  in  spite  of  his  greater  cosmological 
interest,  Jeremiah  is  surpassed  by  Ezekiel  in  the 
frequency  and  the  emphasis  of  his  retrospections  into 
the  early  history,   this  fact  shows  clearly  that   the 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  117 

extent  of  the  interest  in  the  early  history  is  decided 
by  the  different  attitude  taken  by  each  of  these  two 
prophets  toward  the  question  of  angels.  Jeremiah 
had  not  yet  found  the  way  of  orienting  himself  in 
the  early  history  without  angels  (this  was  found  by 
one  of  his  later  followers),  hence  his  diminished 
interest  in  the  early  history.  Ezekiel,  on  the  other 
hand,  enhanced  in  his  determination  to  defend  the 
angels  by  the  very  opposition  of  Jeremiah  and  his 
followers,  alludes  frequently  not  only  to  the  pre- 
Egyptian  history  of  Israel,  but  also  to  those  phases 
in  the  beginnings  of  history  which  link  with  the 
beginnings  of  creation,  and  in  which  the  angels  play 
a  more  conspicuous  part  than  even  in  the  pre-Egyp- 
tian  history  of  Israel  (XIV,  14:  Noah;  XVI,  3.45.46 
f.:  Sodom;  XXVIII,  12.16:  Gan  Eden,  Cherub  = 
XXXI,  8.9.16.18  =  XXXVI,  35;  XXVIII,  25:  to  my 
servant  Jacob;  XXXIII,  24:  Abraham;  these  elements 
of  early  history  come  from  the  sources  of  J 2  in  Gen. 
I-XI).  That  the  development  consummated  in 
Deuteronomy  did  not  fail  to  influence  Ezekiel,  we 
see  best  in  the  fact  that,  like  Jeremiah,  also  Ezekiel, 
permeated  with  the  spirit  of  purity  dominant  in 
Deuteronomy,  denounces  all  sexual  impurity,  es- 
pecially such  as  dared  to  adorn  its  hideous  face  with 
the  halo  of  a  religious  ritual  (VIII,  14.17;  XIII,  17-21 ; 
XXIII,  48.49).  But  neither  this  influence,  nor  even 
the  advanced  purification  of  those  legends  evident 
in  the  conception  of  Ezekiel,  was  sufficient  to  blot 
out  entirely  the  traces  of  objectionable  ideas  cleaving 
to  those  old  narratives.  And  Ezekiel  was  not  slow 
in  recognizing  the  peril  to  the  purity  of  life  lurking 


118  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

in  these  interesting  stories  so  much  beloved  by  the 
people.  And  it  may  be  assumed  that  it  was  this 
peril  that  Ezekiel  sought  to  meet  with  the  hitherto 
unobserved  emphasis  laid  by  him  on  the  old  idea  of 
holiness.  As  against  the  new  prevailing  cosmological 
conception  of  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel  goes  back  to  the 
historical  origin  of  the  Jewish  God-conception,  re- 
formulating it  on  the  basis  of  the  idea  of  the  holy 
name  of  JHVH  (XI,  16;  XIII,  19;  XX,  9.22.39.44; 
XXIV,  21;  XXV,  3;  XXVIII,  22.25;  XXXVI, 
20-23;  XXXVII,  26.28;  XXXVIII,  16.23;  XXXIX, 
7.13.21.25.27;  XLIII,  7.8).  Thus  Ezekiel  reempha- 
sizes  the  ethical  God-conception.  And,  orienting 
ourselves  in  the  book  of  Ezekiel,  we  soon  become  aware 
of  the  fact  that  this  book,  in  spite  of  its  (more  latent) 
cosmogonic  woof,  is  framed  wholly  in  the  scheme  of 
ethical  attributes  and  borne  entirely  by  the  ethical 
motif  of  attributes.  Ezekiel  utilizes  all  the  well- 
known  motifs  of  attributes  employed  by  his  prede- 
cessors, presenting  his  conception  of  history  and  his 
views  on  the  theoretical  principles  of  Judaism  in  a 
setting  artistic  in  its  design  and  systematic  in  its 
execution. 

The  point  of  crystallization  in  the  composition  of 
the  book  of  Ezekiel  is  the  query  into  the  ''Ways  of 
JHVH",  the  definition  of  the  ethical  God-conception. 
It  was  the  "Ways  of  JHVH"  as  embodied  in  the 
Formula  of  Thirteen  upon  which  Ezekiel's  contempo- 
raries directed  their  attacks.  And  to  what  length 
they  went  in  their  rejection  of  the  "Ways  of  JHVH" 
is  evident  from  the  fact  that  they  rejected  also  the 
name    of    JHVH,    as    representing    the    Formula   of 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  119 

Thirteen,  using  instead  the  name  of  Adonoy  ('JIK), 
denoting  might  and  force  (XVIII,  25.29.30;  XXXIII, 
17.20).  These  "Ways"  are  the  same  which  to 
defend  Ezekiel  chose  as  the  task  of  his  life:  The 
"Ways  of  JHVH",  this  is  the  prophet's  general 
answer,  are  good,  only  that  man,  nation  or  individual, 
has  no  claim  upon  any  judgment  other  than  such  as 
corresponding  to  his  own  ways  (III,  18.19;  VII, 
3.4.8.9.27;  IX,  21;  XIII,  22.23;  XVI,  27.43.47; 
XX,  30.43.44;  XXII,  31;  XXIV,  14;  XXXIII, 
8.9.11;  XXXVI,  17.19.31.32).  In  detail  the  prophet 
develops  his  thoughts  in  the  following  conception  of 
history:  JHVH  appears  to  him  in  the  Mercabah, 
in  His  creative  power,  in  which  character  He  is  desig- 
nated by  the  name  of  Shadday  (HP  I,  24,  cf.  X,  5: 
HP  i>x)>  but  it  is  rather  in  His  ethical  attributes 
that  JHVH  reveals  Himself  to  man.  The  visual 
sign  of  the  "glory  of  JHVH",  the  "Cabhod  JHVH", 
representing  the  God  of  the  thirteen  attributes  (cf. 
Ex.  XXXIII,  18.19.22),  appears  in  the  phenomenon 
of  the  "Rainbow  in  the  Cloud",  the  fire,  representing 
rigid  Justice,  turned  upwards,  the  halo,  representing 
Mercy,  turned  downward.  This  is  the  real  essence 
of  God,  expressed  by  the  name  JHVH,  whence  the 
name  "Cabhod  JHVH"  (I,  27.28).  But  on  account  of 
the  people's  sins,  and  especially  as  a  punishment  for 
the  removal  of  the  cherubs,  the  symbol  of  the  angels, 
from  the  temple,  JHVH  turned  his  face  away  from 
them  (cf.  VII,  21  and  XXXIX,  29).  He  abandons 
the  City,  thus  depriving  her  of  her  securest  shield 
against  the  enemy.  In  His  stead  now  appears  the 
"Mal'akh  JHVH",  eliminated  at  the  time  of  the  erec- 


120  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

tion  of  the  temple,  resuming  his  function  of  dis- 
pensing rigid  justice;  a  change  indicated  in  the  rever- 
sion of  the  previous  vision,  the  Cabhod  now  being 
turned  upward,  the  fire  downward.  Only  a  number 
of  individuals,  marked  by  a  sign  of  mercy  on  their 
foreheads,  will  escape.  In  this  time  of  judgment  the 
name  of  God  is  not  only  JHVH  (employed  in  the 
book  of  Ezekiel  213  times),  but  also,  following  in 
part  the  suggestion  of  his  contemporaries,  Adonoy 
JHVH  (likewise  213  times;  cf.  especially  XXXVI, 
22.23).  Not  before  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple  in 
accordance  with  the  divine  will,  i.  e.  purified  of  all 
unholy  images,  but  adorned  with  the  holy  image  not 
only  of  two  cherubs,  but  of  the  entire  Mercabah,  as 
described  by  the  prophet,  will  JHVH  reestablish  his 
presence  in  the  midst  of  Israel,  and  then  the  city  will 
receive  the  name  niD£>  JUT,  "JHVH  is  There" — 
the  name  JHVH  will  then  become  the  exclusive  name 
of  God  (Chaps.  I;  VIII;  IX; X;  especially  as  compared 
with  XLIII,  1-8;  XLI,  21  with  XLIII,  3  (and  X,  20) 
and  XLVIII,  35;  as  to  Mal'akh  JHVH  cf.  Ez.  VIII 
and  IX  with  2  Sam.  XXIV  and  1  Chr.  XXI  and 
Ez.  XXI,  13-20,  especially  v.  16  with  2  Sam.  XXIV, 
17  in  the  light  of  the  version  1  Chr.  XXI,  16;  also 
cf.  Num.  XXII,  22.23  and  Josh.  X,  13  f.). 

As  we  have  just  seen,  the  God-conception  of 
Ezekiel  is  by  no  means  the  same  mere  ethical  of  the 
pre-Jeremian  period,  the  former  having  a  cosmological 
touch.  This  meant  a  certain  enrichment  of  the  God- 
conception,  expressed  especially  in  the  attributes  of 
Wisdom,  emphasized  by  Ezekiel  as  the  criterion  of 
divinity  wherever  he  alludes  to  cosmogonic   myths 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  121 

(XXVIII,  2-7.12.17).  But  the  return  to  the  doctrine 
of  angels  annulled  in  part  this  enrichment  of  the 
God-conception.  Creative  Power  cannot  mean  a  real 
criterion  of  divinity  as  long  as  there  are  in  existence, 
alongside  of  the  creator,  eternal  angels,  carrying  out 
certain  functions  in  the  creation  of  the  world. 

Indeed,  on  this  conception  of  God  Ezekiel  depends 
in  his  entire  Weltanschauung  and  historic  orientation: 

A  marked  reaction  we  perceive  in  the  conception 
of  prophecy.  To  be  sure,  like  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  too, 
preaches  against  false  prophets  and  the  lower  mantical 
forms,  especially  against  its  feminine  branch  (XII, 
24;  ch.  XIII;  v.  17  f.  against  the  prophetesses; 
XXI,  26-29;  XXII  25.29),  but  his  own  conception 
of  prophecy  goes  back  to  that  of  the  old  period. 
He  sees  God  in  the  anthropomorphic  Mercabah 
vision.  Ezekiel  has,  as  we  will  see  later  on,  a  very 
definite  notion  of  the  distinction  between  spirit 
(rm)  and  flesh  ("tea ).  However,  even  spirit 
appears  to  him  in  a  very  tangible  vision.  "Ruah", 
as  used  by  Ezekiel,  denotes,  as  with  almost  all  biblical 
writers,  now  "spirit",  now  "wind";  Ezekiel's  con- 
tribution to  this  double  meaning  consisting  in  estab- 
lishing a  closer  interrelation  betwen  the  two  (cf. 
especially  ch.  XXXVII).  In  his  prophetic  visions 
he  not  only  sees  Mercabah  and  angels,  but  he  also 
experiences  the  immediate  influence  of  the  "Ruah" 
which  "comes  unto  him",  "seizes  him  and  carries 
him  away",  or  also:  the  hand  of  JHVH  seizes  him 
or  rests  upon  him  (II,  2.9.10;  III,  12.14.22.24; 
VIII,  3;  XI,  1.5.24;  XLIII,  5.6).  Jeremiah  gives 
added  expression  to  his  purified  idea  of  prophecy  by 


122  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

abhorring  in  very  strong  accents  the  word  "Massa" 
( Nt?D ),  then  in  vogue  for  the  designation  of  a  divine 
revelation,  considering  that  word  as  degrading  to 
true  prophecy:  They  should  not  ask:  "What  was 
the  'Massa'  of  JHVH?",  but:  "What  is  it  that  JHVH 
said?",  or:  "What  was  it  that  JHVH  spoke?" 
"Massa"  seemed  to  him  to  emphasize  too  much  the 
element  of  phantasy  which  he  insisted  on  having 
removed  from  the  word  of  JHVH  (Jer.  XXIII, 
33-39;  cf.  2  Ki.  IX,  25 — by  the  way,  the  only  time 
the  word  (Wd)  in  the  meaning  of  divine  revelation 
occurs  in  pre-Deuteronomic  literature;  the  headings 
in  Is.  XIII-XXX,  as  also  those  of  Nahum,  Habakkuk 
and  Zechariah,  evidently  having  been  attached  at  the 
final  redaction  of  the  Bible).  Ezekiel  returns  to  this 
old  designation  of  prophecy  (XII,  10;  the  text, 
however,  being  quite  uncertain).  On  the  other  hand, 
again,  it  must  be  said  that  as  far  as  the  conception 
of  the  calling  of  the  prophet  as  a  teacher  of  religion 
and  morality  goes,  Ezekiel  not  only  yields  nothing 
to  Jeremiah  but  even  surpasses  him  in  clearness  and 
definiteness  of  formulation  and  expression  (cf.  es- 
pecially chaps.  XII;  XIII;  XIV;  XVIII;  XXXIII). 
As  against  the  old  view  that  the  sinner  is  to  be  denied 
the  benefits  of  prophecy,  a  view  corresponding  to 
the  lower  conception  of  prophecy  as  a  mere  mantical 
device  (cf.  1  Sam.  XXVIII,  6.15),  Ezekiel  progresses 
to  the  conviction  that  it  is  just  the  sinfulness  of  the 
people  that  calls  for  the  ministrations  of  the  prophet, 
the  teacher  (XIV,  2-11;  XX,  3-31);  and  this  duty  of 
the  prophet  becomes  the  greater  and  the  more  urgent, 
the   more   the  people  recognize  him  as  such,   thus 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  123 

expecting  of  him  guidance,  instruction  and  admoni- 
tion. In  this  case  the  prophet's  position  is  like  that 
of  the  watch  on  the  tower  in  time  of  war  (XXXIII, 
2-20;  cf.  Ill,  17-21). 

Added  orientation  permits  us  the  further  insight 
that  the  notion  of  "Ruah"  holds  a  central  position  in 
Ezekiel's  trend  of  thought:  It  is  the  unifying  "Ruah" 
who  preserves  the  monotheistic  idea  in  the  multi- 
morphic  Mercabah  (I,  12.20.21;  X,  17),  and  it  is  He 
who  inspires  the  prophet  in  the  hour  of  revelation 
(cf.  above).  The  same  "Ruah"  is  the  all-absorbing 
feature  in  the  vision  of  resurrection  (XXXVII,  1-14). 
The  Ruah  of  prophecy  leads  the  prophet  into  the 
valley  (v.  1),  and  it  is  the  same  Ruah  which  is  de- 
scribed as  the  vitalising  substance  in  contradistinction 
of  the  bones  (body;  w.  5-10;  14).  The  idea  of  resur- 
rection is  here  merely  symbolic  of  the  political  con- 
ditions of  the  time;  nevertheless,  the  idea  is  here. 
And  little  as  we  are  entitled  to  think  that  Ezekiel 
advanced  the  idea  of  resurrection,  the  fact  stands 
out  clearly  that  he  employed  the  old  Jewish  idea  of  the 
independent  existence  of  the  soul  in  a  more  outspoken 
way  than  did  any  prophet  or  writer  before  him. 
It  is  again  the  same  "Ruah"  whom  God  "gives  into 
the  heart"  of  a  nation  or  an  individual  for  betterment, 
and  also  on  this  occasion  the  Ruah  is  contrasted 
with  the  flesh  (1W;  XI,  19;  XXXVI,  25-27). 

This,  the  help  of  God  to  moral  betterment, 
involves,  of  course,  (as  has  already  been  observed 
by  the  Talmudists),  a  restriction  of  freedom  of  will; 
an  attitude  which  is  felt  also  in  the  opposite  direction, 
i.  e.  that  of  limiting  man's  ability  to  mend  his  ways 


124  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

(XIV,  9;  XXIV,  13).  And  yet,  in  spite  of  this 
oscillatory  attitude  in  the  question  of  man's  free 
will,  Ezekiel  is  the  prophet  who,  more  than  any  one 
of  his  predecessors,  tries  to  clarify  the  doctrine  of 
retribution  as  such  and,  especially,  in  its  interdepend- 
ence with  the  doctrine  of  repentance  (cf.  below). 
And  even  the  idea  of  the  new  "Ruah"  which  brings 
about  a  betterment  of  the  heart,  appears  once  ex- 
pressed in  the  sense  of  freedom  of  will  (XVIII,  31: 
"And  fashion  ye  unto  youi  selves  a  new  heart  and  a 
new  Ruah").  This  testifies  to  the  intimate  connec- 
tion between  the  conceptions  of  God  and  Soul  in  the 
speculation  of  Ezekiel,  as  also  to  the  interdependence 
between  the  questions  of  prophecy,  freedom  of  will 
and  retribution  and  those  conceptions,  and  between 
each  other.  The  cosmological  element  in  his  God- 
conception  led  Ezekiel  to  a  deeper  realization  of  the 
concept  of  the  individual  soul,  and,  like  Jeremiah,  he, 
too,  was  impelled  by  the  circumstances  of  his  time 
to  submit  the  principle  of  national  retribution  to  a 
rigid  examination  as  to  its  tenability  (XVIII,  2  f.). 
Ezekiel,  however,  had  not  the  efficient  expedient  of 
the  monotheistic  theory  of  creation  by  which  Jere- 
miah was  able  to  allay  all  doubts  and  perplexities; 
Ezekiel's  theory  of  creation  not  being  sufficiently 
monotheistic  to  fulfill  that  task.  For  this  reason 
the  contradictions  concerning  the  freedom  of  will  with 
Ezekiel  are  even  more  disturbing  than  those  with 
Jeremiah,  although  Jeremiah  left  these  problems  as 
much  unsolved  as  did  Ezekiel. 

But  if  Ezekiel  does  not  show  much  of  a  conscious 
effort  to  clear  up  the  question  of  free  will,  his  specu- 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  125 


lation  is  intently  active  around  the  question  of 
retribution. 

The  question  of  why  the  righteous  suffers  while 
the  wicked  prospers,  already  troubled  Jeremiah  and 
other  prophets  (Jer.  XII,  1  f.;  cf.  Hab.  ch.  I),  but 
never  before  had  this  question  been  so  thoroughly 
discussed  and  its  solution  so  earnestly  attempted  as 
by  Ezekiel. 

The  thoughts  of  Ezekiel  on  this  question,  as  re- 
stricted, complemented  and  illumined  by  each 
other,  may  be  outlined  in  the  following  summary: 

In  spite  of  the  more  liberal  utilization  of  the  soul- 
idea  in  its  eschatological  conception  (ch.  XXXVII), 
Ezekiel  was  as  little  ready  to  employ  the  idea  of 
retribution  in  the  hereafter  in  order  to  solve,  or  at 
least  to  mitigate,  thereby  the  perplexities  of  the 
principle  of  retribution,  as  was  any  one  of  his  prede- 
cessors. He  rather  tries  hard  to  solve  this  problem 
in  a  this-wordly  fashion.  We  remember  the  conten- 
tion of  Ezekiel's  contemporaries  against  the  ''Ways 
of  JHVH"  as  expressed  in  the  formula  of  Thirteen, 
that  these  were  not  good  inasmuch  as  they  led  to  the 
suffering  of  the  just  (for  the  sins  of  their  fathers) 
and  the  prosperity  of  the  wicked  (for  the  merits  of 
their  fathers;  cf.  XVIII,  2.25.29.30;  XXXIII,  17.20). 
Some  of  the  prophet's  contemporaries  went  even  fur- 
ther in  their  attack  on  the  "Ways  of  God".  From 
the  injustice  they  believed  to  perceive  in  the  world, 
they  jumped  to  the  conclusion  that  there  was  no 
providence,  JHVH  having  left  the  land  (or  the 
earth?)  altogether  (VIII,   12;  IX,  9).     To  ward  off 


126  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

these  attacks  the  prophet  tries  to  fortify  the  principle 
of  retribution  with  the  following  theory : 

The  idea  of  individual  responsibility  is  the  un- 
alterable principle  of  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  retribu- 
tion. The  attribute  of  "Visiting  the  sins  of  the 
fathers",  thus  the  entire  principle  of  national  retri- 
bution, is  given  up  (XVIII,  2-20).  With  this  prin- 
ciple Ezekiel  relinquishes  also  the  very  efficient  ex- 
planation which  it  furnished  through  the  ages  in 
the  defense  of  justice,  suggesting  that  the  seeming 
injustice  of  the  suffering  of  the  righteous  and  the 
prosperity  of  the  wicked  is  balanced  up,  respectively, 
by  the  sins  or  the  merits  of  past  generations.  Instead 
of  the  principle  of  national  retribution  it  is  now  a 
stronger  emphasis  laid  upon  the  principle  of  free  will 
which  is  made  to  serve  in  the  defense  of  justice. 
Man  is  free  in  both  directions,  for  good  as  well  as 
for  evil.  And  this  possibility  of  complete  change  of 
heart  (without  displaying  it  to  the  outside  world) 
explains  all  difficulties  about  justice.  The  wicked 
surely  suffers  for  his  sins,  but  only  if  he  fails  to  repent 
and  to  resolve  to  mend  his  ways.  In  the  moment, 
however,  that  he  repents  in  his  heart  and  resolves  to 
reform,  his  sins  are  blotted  out,  and  then  it  well  may 
happen  that  he  be  prosperous.  The  righteous,  again, 
is  prosperous  only  if  he  remains  righteous,  in  the 
case,  however,  that  he  return  from  his  righteousness 
by  committing  some  actual  sins,  while  remaining 
righteous  in  general,  or  by  becoming  wavering  in  his 
love  for  righteousness  even  though  in  his  thoughts 
only,  he  may  suffer,  either  for  those  actual  sins  com- 
mitted during  the  period  of  his  righteousness,  or  for 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  127 

the  abandoning  of  the  principle  of  righteousness. 
Sins  for  which  one  has  repented,  count  as  little  as 
good  actions  which  one  disavows,  as  it  were,  by  his 
later  conduct.  Later  sin  extinguishes  previous  merit, 
as  later  merit  extinguishes  previous  sin  (III,  17-21; 
XVIII,  21-28;  XXXIII,  9-20).  And  to  what  length 
the  prophet  was  determined  to  go  in  his  emphasis 
upon  individual  responsibility,  is  best  seen  in  his 
insistence  on  the  theory  that  even  in  the  case  of  a 
general  disaster  that  overtakes  a  land,  it  is  only  the 
sinful  who  are  hit,  while  the  righteous,  and  were  there 
only  three,  or  even  only  one,  in  the  entire  population 
of  a  land,  will  surely  be  saved  in  some  way  from  the 
general  destruction  (XIV,  13-20).  As  applied  to  the 
situation  of  the  nation,  the  prophet  draws  the  con- 
clusion from  his  theory  that  it  is  not  for  the  sins  of 
their  fathers  but  for  their  own  sins  that  the  people 
suffer,  and  that  the  innocent  remnant  will  be  saved 
(XIV,  21-23  and  all  passages  quoted  above  about  the 
"Ways  of  JHVH").  On  the  other  hand,  however, 
Ezekiel  maintains  that  one  righteous  individual  may 
save  a  whole  nation  by  interposing  betwixt  God  and 
his  people,  as  teacher  and  exhorter,  making  the 
people  realize  their  sinfulness  and  arousing  them  to 
mend  their  ways,  as  also  by  praying  for  them  to  God 
for  forgiveness  and  mercy  (IV,  4-6;  XXII,  30.31). 

It  is  justified  to  say  that  the  rejection  of  the 
principle  of  national  retribution  was  lather  a  step 
backward,  inasmuch  as  the  principle  of  the  absolutely 
individual  account  in  life  cannot  be  upheld  before 
either  reason  or  experience.  Nevertheless,  it  was 
even  this  one-sidedness  of  Ezekiel  that  led  up  to  a 


128  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

marked  progress  in  the  question  of  retribution. 
This  question,  while  not  a  new  one,  having  been  taken 
up  and  vigorously  treated  by  Ezekiel's  predecessors 
and  contemporaries,  had  never  before  received  any- 
thing like  a  tangible  solution  beyond  the  suggestions 
of  the  formula  of  Thirteen.  What  prophets  like 
Jeremiah  and  Habakuk  offered  to  the  troubled  soul 
of  the  believer  in  the  way  of  allaying  his  doubts  and 
perplexities  not  appeased  by  the  then  unappealing  attri- 
bute of  national  retribution,  was  not  a  real  answer, 
but  a  declaration  of  a  regained  confidence  in  God  the 
Creator  that  His  ways  surely  are  perfect  even  though 
we  mortals  cannot  fully  comprehend  them  (cf.  Is. 
Ill,  11.12;  XXXIX,  15;  Zeph.  I,  12  f.;  Ill,  5  f.; 
Hab.  ch.  I:  question,  and  ch.  II,  answer;  cf.  Mai. 
II,  17;  III,  14-18).  And  then,  too,  the  object  of 
their  query  was  chiefly  the  nation,  the  state,  even 
though  their  language  often  suggests  the  individual. 
And  even  Jeremiah  who  takes  up  the  question  from 
the  aspect  of  an  individual  case  (ch.  XII),  ultimately 
acquiesces  in  the  thought  that  somehow  individual 
and  national  responsibility  obtain  together,  without 
attempting  to  solve  specifically  the  more  obstinate 
questions  evolving  from  the  idea  of  individual  re- 
sponsibility. For  what  the  reduction  of  the  apparent 
incongruities  of  a  difficult  individual  case  to  the 
principle  of  national  retribution  (accounting  for  the 
suffering  of  the  just  by  the  sins,  or  the  prosperity 
of  the  wicked  by  the  merits,  of  his  fathers)  really 
means,  is  not  the  explanation,  but  rather  the  abandon- 
ment of  the  principle  of  personal  retribution. 

It   was   here   that    the   one-sidedness   of    Ezekiel 
was  of  great  help  to  the  further  development. 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  129 

By  his  complete  rejection  of  the  principle  of 
national  retribution,  putting  everything  upon  the 
freedom  of  change  in  the  individual,  he  called  atten- 
tion to  the  just  claims  of  the  principle  of  individual 
responsibility  and  caused  the  development  to  turn 
toward  a  harmonization  of  the  two  principles  in  a 
conception  of  retribution  which  tries  to  determine 
the  function  of  each  one  of  them  as  one  of  the  factors 
which  shape  the  lot  of  the  individual.  Ezekiel, 
therefore,  may  be  considered  as  the  exponent  of  the 
doctrine  of  individual  responsibility  in  Judaism. 
And  although  he  did  not  yet  develop  this  doctrine  into 
individual  retribution  in  the  hereafter,  he  never- 
theless influenced  the  development  in  this  direction 
also,  not  only  through  the  motive  power  of  the 
individualistic  principle  as  such,  but  also  more 
directly  by  his  conception  of  "Ruah"  and  through 
the  eschatological  elements  of  his  vision  of  resurrec- 
tion (ch.  XXXVII;  the  concepts  of  "Sheol"  and 
"Bor"  employed  by  Ezekiel  in  his  prophecies  against 
Egypt,  chaps.  XXXI  and  XXXII,  are  not  meant  to 
express  the  views  of  the  prophet,  but  to  give  to  his 
prophecies  local  color,  addressing  himself  as  he  does 
to  the  Egyptians  in  notions  and  terms  of  their  own 
theology;  cf.  above  and  Tholodoth  I,  p.  153  f.). 

Like  the  development  of  the  theoretical  principles, 
the  higher  forms  of  cultural  life,  too,  were  lastingly 
influenced  by  Ezekiel.  If  the  great  antagonist  of  art, 
Jeremiah  (comparable  to  Plato  among  the  Greeks), 
has  not  carried  the  day  and  the  prohibition  of  the 
plastic  arts  not  only  was  never  completely  observed 
in  practice,  but,  on  the  contrary,  has  so  much  nar- 
rowed  down   through   later  authoritative    (including 


130  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

the  halachic)  interpretation  that  in  the  ultimate 
only  sculptural  and  relief  presentation  of  the  human 
face  in  its  natural  unaltered  features  were  affected 
by  it;  if  thus  the  prohibition  of  images  was  so  much 
restricted  in  its  applicability  that  to  a  certain  extent 
plastic  and  ornamental  arts  continued  to  be  cultivated 
and  developed — this  must  be  credited  mainly  to  the 
influence  of  Ezekiel.  He  denounced  the  unlawful 
worship  of  images  as  zealously  as  did  Jeremiah. 
Like  the  latter  Ezekiel,  too,  believed  that  the  unlawful 
worship  of  images  calls  down  the  wrath  of  JHVH 
upon  the  people  in  the  same  measure  as  the  greatest 
moral  crimes  (V,  11;  ch.  VI;  VIII,  14-17;  XIV,  3-7; 
XVI,  17;  XVIII,  6.12;  XX,  7.28-32.39;  XXII,  4; 
XXIII,  7.39;  XLIII,  8.9).  And  even  against  the 
secular  forms  in  which  the  people  were  gratifying 
their  artistic  sense,  the  prophet  directed  his  reproving 
word  wherever  he  had  reason  to  believe  art  to  be 
detrimental  to  moral  life.  So  particularly  when  he 
denounces  wall-painting,  most  likely  recently  intro- 
duced into  Palestine  from  Babylonia,  because  of 
the  erotic  purpose  which  it  was  made  to  serve  (XXIII, 
14-16;  cf.  above).  Yet,  great  as  was  his  abhorrence  of 
unlawful  image-worship  and  unclean  art,  so  was  his 
enthusiasm  for  the  lawful  image-worship,  and  so  his 
love  for  art  clean  and  pure.  The  religious  forms  of 
expression  conceived  by  Ezekiel  are  borne  by  a  high 
artistic  decorative  ideal.  His  Mercabah-visions,  root- 
ing as  they  were  in  the  doctrine  of  angels,  condensed 
in  his  mind  to  the  postulate  that  in  the  temple  of 
the  future  the  pair  of  cherubs >  removed  by  the  rigid 
monotheists  from  the  first  temple  before  its  destruc- 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  131 

tion,  be  replaced  by  a  reproduction  of  the  whole 
Mercabah  as  he  saw  it  on  the  river  of  Chebar.  This 
he  saw  in  the  vision  in  which  the  idea  of  the  future 
temple  was  revealed  to  him  (XLI,  21;  cf.  above). 
In  this  vision  plan  and  construction  of  the  whole 
edifice  as  well  as  all  of  the  interior  equipment  are 
in  accord  with  the  artistic  Mercabah-idea,  the 
cherub-motif  being  affectionately  employed  also 
outside  of  the  Mercabah  in  the  holy  of  holies  (XL, 
1-XLIV,  5;  XLVI,  19-XLVII,  2;  as  to  the  cherub- 
motif,  cf.  XLI,  18-20).  The  temple  as  conceived  by 
Ezekiel  is  a  religious  art-palace  in  which  the  pre- 
dominant Mercabah-idea  is  an  indispensable  con- 
dition (XLIII,  10-12:  "the  form  of  the  house", 
( rvan  miV ) ,  is  the  term  expressing  the  Mercabah- 
idea).  Later  on  we  will  see  how  these  contending 
influences  of  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  made  themselves 
felt  in  the  development  growing  out  from  the  contact 
of  Judaism  with  Greek  culture. 

About  music  in  the  temple  there  is  nothing  in 
Ezekiel,  either.  Nevertheless  it  was  indubitably  the 
artistic  spirit  of  Ezekiel  that  furthered  the  later 
development  of  temple-music  (cf.  XXXIII,  32:  a 
rather  far  from  flattering  allusion  to  the  musical 
efforts  of  his  contemporaries). 

Also  in  the  development  of  Jewish  literature  the 
influence  of  Ezekiel  falls  chiefly  in  the  direction  of  the 
artistic  shaping  of  the  material  at  hand.  We  have 
seen  how  Ezekiel  employed  the  motif  of  attributes, 
as  found  in  its  manifold  manifestations  in  the  older 
literature,  and  fashioned  it  into  a  highly  suggestive 
scheme  in  which  he  framed  his  thoughts.     If  we  look 


132  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

away  from  the  historic  books  which  have  their 
natural  chronological  frame,  the  mode  in  which 
Ezekiel  develops  his  thoughts,  signifies  a  degree  of 
perfection  in  systematic  arrangement  and  aesthetic- 
ally pleasing  literary  presentation  which  never  before 
had  been  achieved  in  Hebrew  literature.  Ezekiel 
as  a  writer  has  become  the  protagonist  of  a  new 
literary  movement  which  continued  throughout  the 
entire  Graeco-Jewish  period  and  lasted  in  its  effect 
far  into  the  philosophic  literature  of  the  Middle  Ages. 
In  point  of  literary  material  Ezekiel,  as  it  was  shown 
in  the  preceding  and  will  be  given  added  illumination 
in  the  following,  took  hold  of  all  the  themes  which 
were  treated  before  him;  his  own  contribution  con- 
sisting in  his,  above  characterized,  attempt  of  solving 
the  difficulty  inherent  in  the  principle  of  individual 
responsibility.  This  we  will  see  particularly  at  the 
analysis  of  the  book  of  Job.  If  the  basic  thoughts  of 
Job  come  from  Jeremiah,  the  arguments  for  individual 
responsibility  it  advances,  go  back  to  Ezekiel.  And 
if  we  think  of  the  Testament  of  Job  in  Graeco-Jewish 
literature,  and  further  think  of  the  arguments  for 
individual  responsibility  in  talmudic  literature  which 
are  taken  from  the  Book  of  Job  and  enlarged  upon; 
and  especially  if  we  consider  the  fact  that  some 
Jewish  philosophers  of  the  Middle  Ages  (notably 
Maimuni  and  Gersonides)  found  their  thoughts  on 
providence  and  responsibility  preformed  in  that  book, 
we  can  readily  appreciate  how  far-reaching  the 
influence  of  Ezekiel  really  was  (alongside  that  of 
Jeremiah). 

In  legislation  the  influence  of  Ezekiel   was  more 
effective  than  that  of  any  other  single  prophet  known 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  133 

to  us  by  name.  There  is  hardly  any  law  question 
which  he  has  not  drawn  into  his  sphere  of  interest, 
at  least  as  far  as  the  underlying  principle  is  concerned 
(XVI,  40.41;  XVIII,  5-18;  XX,  11-31;  XXII,  6-12. 
25-29;  XXIII,  37-47;  XXIV,  16-23;  XXXIII, 
15.25.26;  (XXXIX,  12-17.18-20);  all  chapters  and 
passages  treating  of  the  plan  and  ritual  of  the  sanc- 
tuary, especially:  XLII,  13.14;  XLIII,  18-27;  XLVI, 
7-31;  XLV,  9-28;  XLVI,  1-18).  Characteristic  of 
Ezekiel's  legislative  activity  is,  in  the  first  line,  the 
added  attention  he  pays  to  ritual  commands  in 
general  and  to  the  ritual  of  bloody  sacrifices  in  par- 
ticular. Not  as  if  the  attitude  of  Ezekiel,  the  priest- 
prophet,  would  justify  to  any  extent  the  presumption 
that  there  was  any  real  contradiction  between  the 
priestly  Torah  and  the  prophetic  Torah  (cf.  above), 
but  it  is  to  be  admitted  that  Ezekiel,  at  times  at 
least,  does  speak  of  the  ritual  laws  in  such  a  way  as 
to  suggest  that  in  his  esteem  ritual  laws  rank  as  high 
as  ethical  laws.  Characteristical  of  his  attitude  are 
especially  the  following  special  laws.  The  Sabbath 
in  its  social  aspect  assumes  in  the  view  of  Ezekiel 
the  significance  of  a  Sign  of  the  Covenant  (XX,  11-21). 
We  will  see  in  the  following  that  this  became  after- 
wards one  of  the  essential  views  of  his  school.  And 
also  circumcision  has  assumed  in  the  view  of  Ezekiel 
almost  the  significance  of  a  sign  of  the  covenant 
(XLIV,  7-9).  Capital  punishment  appears  more 
established  with  Ezekiel,  the  champion  of  the  idea 
of  mediation  in  the  doctrine  of  angels  (XVI,  40.41; 
XXXIII,  47),  than  in  Deuteronomy  (cf.  above), 
an  element  of  development  which  we  will  yet  have 
to  consider  (cf.  below).     Still  clearer  is  the  attitude 


134  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

of  Ezekiel  on  the  principle  involved  in  the  question 
of  the  guilt- offering.  It  is  with  him  that  we  find  for 
the  first  time  the  guilt-offering  as  a  legally  regulated 
established  institution  (XL,  39;  XLII,  13;  XLIII, 
18  f. ;  XLIV,  6-31 ;  XLV,  18;  XLVI,  19  f.).  The  guilt- 
offering,  until  then  mentioned  by  no  code,  and 
merely  tolerated  as  a  private  institution  (cf.  above), 
is  not  only  postulated  by  Ezekiel  as  a  full-fledged 
legal  institution,  but  is,  moreover,  elevated  to  the 
highest  rank  in  the  order  of  sacrifices.  The  guilt- 
offering  is  the  "most  holy"  sacrifice  on  which  only 
the  priests,  the  Zadokites ,  are  permitted  to  do  service, 
while  the  Levites  are  admitted  to  service  on  the  other 
sacrifices  only,  mostly  in  the  nature  of  a  free-will- 
offering  (XLIV;  13-15.27.29;  cf.  XLIII.  19-26). 
Nothing  short  of  the  principle  of  extreme  individual 
responsibility  is  sufficient  as  an  adequate  explanation 
of  the  radical  change  in  the  view  about  worth  and 
position  of  the  guilt-offering.  It  is  the  outspoken 
tendency  toward  the  principle  of  jus  talionis  which 
presses  to  the  fore  in  the  establishment  of  the  guilt- 
offering  as  well  as  of  capital  punishment;  this  being 
an  element  of  development  of  which  we  will  hear 
more  later  on. 

The  universalistic-messianic  idea  is  continually 
losing  ground  in  the  time  of  Ezekiel.  Already  with 
Jeremiah  we  find  the  idea  that  the  messianic  time 
will  bring  about  the  national  restoration  of  Israel  to 
the  terror  and  horror  of  all  other  nations  (XXXIII, 
7-9),  although  he  never  had  given  up  the  hope  of  the 
nations,  or  at  least  some  of  them,  joining  Judaism 
(cf.  above).     With  Ezekiel,  however,  the  universal- 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  135 

istic  messianic  idea  is  entirely  drowned  in  the  idea 
of  national  restoration  of  Israel.  To  be  sure,  Ezekiel 
devotes  his  service  also  to  other  nations.  To  them, 
too,  he  addresses  elaborate  messages  and  warnings. 
The  key-note  of  his  messages,  however,  is  the  coming 
of  the  great  sweeping  judgment,  in  one  instance  only 
giving  room  to  the  possible  prevailing  of  mercy  to  a 
nation  other  than  Israel  (XXIX,  13:  Egypt).  True 
to  his  prophetic  ideal,  Ezekiel  was  desirous  to  serve 
the  stranger  dwelling  in  the  midst  of  his  people  with 
the  same  ardor  as  his  own  people  (XIV,  7).  More- 
over, in  his  charitable  treatment  of  the  stranger, 
Ezekiel  as  legislator  went  so  far  as  to  proclaim  full 
equality  of  the  stranger  who  has  produced  issue  in 
the  land,  giving  the  stranger  equal  opportunity  on 
the  occasion  of  public  land-distribution  (XLVII, 
22.23).  However,  the  conditions  were,  religiously 
and  politically,  so  desolate  and  hopeless  that  Ezekiel 
fell  back  wholly  upon  the  national  hope.  His  pro- 
phetic message  addresses  itself  primarily  to  his  own, 
the  chosen  people  (III,  5  f.;  XX,  5).  The  prophet 
longs  for  a  new  covenant  (XIV,  59-62;  XX,  37; 
XXXIV,  25;  XXXVII,  26;  XLIV,  7).  Israel  shall 
be  restored  before  the  eyes  of  the  nations  to  whom 
this  sanctification  and  glorification  of  the  name  of 
JHVH  shall  be  a  source  of  amazement  and  terror 
(XX,  9-41;  XXII,  16;  XXVIII,  25.26;  XXXIV,  30; 
XXXVI,  21-27;  XXXVII,  28;  XXXVIII,  23; 
XXXIX,  7.21-23.27.28).  It  is  the  trend  of  the 
times  which  Ezekiel  partly  follows  and  partly  pro- 
motes. Similar  thoughts  we  find  also  with  other 
prophets  of  that  period   (so  most  likely  Mi.   IV,  5: 


136  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

as  a  protest  against  IV,  1-3  and  VII,  16.17).  It  was 
at  that  time  when  the  idea  was  advanced  that  the 
hosts  of  the  heavens  have  been  "assigned"  to  the 
nations  for  worship  (Deut.  IV,  19;  XXIX,  5— later 
additions;  cf.  also  Jer.  X,  2.16;  LI,  19).  One  of  the 
contemporary  prophets  goes  so  far  as  to  conceive  an 
apocalyptic  vision  diametrically  opposed  to  the  great 
universalistic-messianic  vision  of  Isaiah  and  Micah 
(Is.  II,  2-4;  Mi.  IV,  1-3):  All  nations  should  prepare 
war.  "Beat  your  plowshares  into  swords  and  your 
pruninghooks  into  spears;"  (Is.  says:  "And  they  shall 
beat  their  swords  into  plowshares  and  their  spears 
into  pruninghooks") — "Let  the  nations  wake  up  and 
come  to  the  valley  of  Jehoshaphat  ('JHVH  will 
judge'  " — Is.  calls  the  nations  to  Zion)  "for  there  will 
I  sit  to  judge  all  the  nations"  (Is.  says:  "And  He  will 
judge  between  the  nations.")  "round  about"  (Joel  IV, 
9-12;  the  last  two  chapters  of  the  book  of  Joel  belong 
to  the  early  exilic  period).  Through  Ezekiel,  how- 
ever, these  thoughts  received  added  significance  by 
his  comprehensive  conception  of  world  and  history 
which  ser\e  them  as  setting.  If  even  with  his  own 
chosen  Israel  JHVH  communicates  through  the 
mediation  of  angels  only,  it  is  quite  plausible  that  the 
final  divine  intention  may  be  to  have  the  nations 
placed  under  the  dominion  of  the  hosts  of  heaven  (a 
view  which  we  find  with  some  Talmudists  and  even 
with  some  medieval  philosophers.) 

In  his  conception  of  history  Ezekiel  alludes  to  the 
Canaanitic  origin  of  a  part  of  Israel  more  clearly  than 
any  other  prophet  (chaps.  XVI  arid  XXIII;  cf.  XX, 
5).     But   also   the   hope   for   the   re-uniting  of   both 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  137 

kingdoms  under  the  scepter  of  a  Davidide  rings 
through  the  prophecies  of  Ezekiel  more  forcefully 
than  through  those  of  any  other  prophet.  The  on- 
rushing  national  disaster  was  calling  for  a  more 
comprehensive  national  orientation  which  included 
also  Israel,  now  a  religious  dependency  of  Judah. 
In  addition,  Ezekiel  was,  in  his  views,  nearer  to  old 
Israel  than  Jeremiah  or  any  other  prophet  of  the 
last  generations.  And  also  the  personal  contact  with 
the  leading  spirits  of  the  old  IsraelitishGoIah  may  have 
contributed  much  to  the  shaping  of  Ezekiel's  religious 
views  (XIV,  7;  XX,  1).  To  him  Israel  once  again 
was,  both  religiously  and  politically,  a  living  force, 
and  a  stronger  reclamation  of  the  Israelitish  element 
was  bound  to  bring  new  succor  to  his  conservative 
ideas  in  religion  and  culture;  a  hope  which  really 
came  true.  Here  we  touch  upon  the  very  source  of 
that  swaying  longing  of  Ezekiel's  for  the  re-union 
of  Israel  and  Juda  (XI,  15;  XX,  40;  XXII,  6;  XXV, 
3;  XXVII,  17;  XXXIV,  12-24  (David);  XXXVI,  10; 
XXXVII,  16-28  (David);  XXXIX,  23-25;  cf.  Echa 
II,  1-5;  Nah.  II,  1-3;  Zech.  VIII,  13;  X.  6).  And 
also  these  growing  national  aspirations  were  bound 
to  tone  down  the  universalistic-messianic  hopes. 

3.     Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel:  Two  Schools 

Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  the  two  great  opponents  in 
world-conception,  historic  view  and  outlook  into  the 
future,  became  the  two  great  central  figures  on  which 
the  following  ages  oriented  themselves.  The  only 
personality  of  the  past  who  was  still  measurably  com- 
peting with  these  two  heroes  in  the  domination  over 
the  minds  of  the  age,  was  Isaiah.     Since,  however,  the 


138  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

ideas  of  Isaiah,  as  far  as  they  touch  upon  the  opposing 
views  concerned,  were  absorbed  by  the  one  or  the 
other  of  these  two  leading  prophets,  the  direct 
influence  of  Isaiah  was  limited  to  linguistic  phrases  and 
expressive  combinations  of  conceptions.  All  prophets 
and  writers  referred  to  here  use  motifs  and  elements  of 
both  camps,  but  gradually  there  develop  two  distinct 
schools  contending  with  each  other  in  questions  of 
principle.  These  will  henceforth  be  referred  to  as  the 
Schools  of  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  respectively. 

The  literature  of  this  formative  period  comprises 
the  following  literary  units,  complete  writings  or  parts 
of  such  —  Jeremiah,  chaps.  L  and  LI;  Echa; 
Isaiah  XL-LXVI;  Job;  Is.  XIII,  1-XIV,  23;  chaps. 
XXIV-XXVII;  Jonah;  Ruth;  Zech.  chap.  IX;  X; 
XII  and  XIII,  1-6;  Haggai;  Zech.  chaps.  I-VIII; 
Malachi  (and  parts  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah).  With  the 
exception  of  the  three  latter  prophets,  all  these  prop- 
hets and  writers  were  working  and  writing  in  the  exile, 
detached  from  the  land  of  their  hope.  Yet,  that  land, 
the  state  to  be  created  therein,  the  new  Covenant  with 
God  which  was  to  become  the  foundation  of  that  new 
state,  and  the  principles  which  were  to  serve  as  the 
basis  of  that  covenant — all  of  these  were  living  issues 
which  formed  the  themes  of  all  spiritual  work  and  all 
literary  activity.  These  contentions  and  controver- 
sies cover  the  period  between  the  destruction  of  the 
Temple  and  the  Esra-covenant  (586-444  B.C. — 
Modern  critics  shift  the  date  of  Esra  down  about  a 
full  century;  but  this  question  is  of  no  importance  for 
the  object  of  our  investigation).  About  this  time 
both  camps  were  preparing  for  the  great  event,  the 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA 139 

new  covenant,  so  much  longed  for,  but  postponed  again 
and  again  by  untoward  circumstances.  And  when 
the  time,  so  fervently  hoped  for,  was  approaching, 
there  were  two  parties  facing  each  other,  each  one  of 
them  with  its  Book  in  hand,  claiming  that  its  book 
should  be  made  the  foundation  of  the  new  covenant, 
the  Book  of  the  Covenant.  But  before  we  proceed  to 
the  discussion  of  these  two  documents  which  absorbed 
the  whole  previous  development  and  determined  the 
course  of  the  future,  we  propose  to  select  from 
the  series  of  literary  units  mentioned  above  three 
which  we  consider  as  most  adequately  characterizing 
the  progressing  movement  of  that  period,  and  which 
also  illumine  the  essential  points  of  difference  in  the 
center  of  that  great  controversy.  We  mean  Isaiah 
XL-XL VI II,  Job,  and  Jonah.  These  three  writings 
by  no  means  cover  the  whole  field  of  the  controversy, 
yet  they  discuss  the  most  essential  points,  and  will 
furnish  us  a  fair  conception  of  that  most  complex 
development.  The  writers  of  this  period  were,  in 
spite  of  their  general  allegiance  to  one  of  the  two 
schools,  strong  individualities  who  were  going  their 
own  ways  in  certain  questions  of  detail  so  as  to 
seemingly  bring  about  a  change  of  front  in  some  of  the 
points.  This  is  especially  true  of  the  three  writers 
just  mentioned.  Nevertheless,  the  analysis  of  their 
writings  will  prepare  us  for  an  adequate  understanding 
of  the  two  prospective  Books  of  the  Covenant,  which, 
for  that  matter,  also  go  their  own  ways,  deviating  in 
certain  non-essentials  from  what  we  would  expect  as 
consistent  with  the  general  attitude  of  their  respective 
schools.     The  rest  of  the  literary  units  of  this  period 


140  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

will  be  referred  to  on  apt  occasions  (for  a  more  detailed 
analysis  cf.  Geschichte  der  jued.  Philosophic  II,  1, 
chaps.  2,  3  and  4). 

a.    Deutero-Isaiah: 

This  great  prophet  of  the  exile  deepened  the 
thought  of  monotheistic  creation,  but  this  did  not 
prevent  him  from  embodying  Ezekielian  elements  in 
his  sermons  to  the  extent  of  their  compatibility  with 
the  principles  of  his  own  school.  Thus  be  expatiates 
on  the  idea  of  holiness  as  one  of  the  essential  divine 
attributes;  an  idea  which  indeed  is  in  no  contradiction 
with  the  doctrine  of  monotheistic  creation,  but  rather 
complementary  to  it  in  its  ultimate  purport.  In  his 
messages  devoted  to  the  announcement  of  the  oncom- 
ing liberation,  this  prophet  addresses  himself  not  only 
against  Bel-Marduk  (XLVI,  1),  but  even  more  so 
against  the  more  systematically  Persian  Dualism 
based  on  the  Two  Principles  of  Light  and  Darkness  or 
Good  and  Evil.  And  the  need  of  taking  a  definite 
stand  against  the  basic  principle  of  the  Persian 
religion  was  all  the  more  pressing  as  the  prophet 
addressed  Cyrus  as  the  "anointed"  of  JHVH,  whom 
JHVH  had  chosen  to  liberate  His  people  and  to  restore 
His  Temple.  This  distinction  of  the  heathen  king  was 
fraught  with  danger  to  the  spiritual  independence  of 
the  Jews,  and  any  tendencies  to  yield  to  the  religious 
authority  of  this  "anointed"  that  may  have  been 
pressing  to  the  fore,  demanded  a  vigorous  challenge 
from  the  prophet  most  responsible  for  that  distinction 
(note  the  trend  of  thought  in  XLV,  1-7!).  The  line 
of  argumentation  followed  by  this  prophet  is  mostly 
cosmological  in  character.     More  clearly  than  with 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  141 


Jeremiah  (cf.  Jer.  V,  20-22;  X,  12  (L.  1,  15);  XXIII, 
24)  there  appear  in  the  arguments  of  this  prophet,  for 
the  first  time  in  the  world-literature,  the  definite 
contours  of  the  Cosmological  Proof  for  the  existence  of 
God.  A  look  at  the  "star-lit  heavens  above  us" 
(almost  in  the  language  of  Kant!),  and  into  the  eternal 
immutable  order  and  the  infallibility  with  which  each 
and  every  one  of  the  heavenly  bodies  pursues  its 
course,  convey  to  us  the  certainty  of  God's  reality  with 
a  force  overwhelming  and  irresistible  (XL,  26). 
The  stricter  logical  way  of  this  prophet's  reasoning 
receives  its  expression  also  in  the  systematic  frame 
into  which  he  sets  the  ethico-cosmological  world-con- 
ception of  Judaism.  Originally  Judaism  began  with 
the  idea  of  ethical  creation:  God  created  Israel  as  a 
nation  (Hos.  VIII,  14),  from  this  sprang  up  the  idea 
of  the  ethical-providential  creation  of  the  invidual 
(Is.  XVII,  7;  cf.  Theldoth  p.  65),  to  reach  its  climax 
in  the  general  cosmological  idea  of  creation  when  the 
conditions  of  the  time  favored  the  development  of  this 
doctrine.  Now  our  prophet  in  his  systematic  presen- 
tation reverses  this  order:  God  the  creator  of  heaven 
and  earth  is  also  the  creator  of  the  soul  of  man  and  the 
creator  of  the  nation  in  the  ethical  meaning  of  the 
term  (XLII,  5-6).  By  this  the  prophet  endeavors  to 
establish  the  unity  of  the  creative  power  in  Nature, 
both  in  good  and  evil,  and  in  History;  the  idea  upon 
which  he  lays  so  much  stress  as  against  Persian 
dualism  (XLV,  6,  7,  12,  18;  XLVIII,  13). 

In  the  metaphysical  profundity  of  his  spiritual 
God-conception  our  prophet  goes  beyond  Isaiah:  God 
is  the  first  and  the  last,  the  other  gods  are  nothing 
(DBK).      The   terms  in  which   this  prophet   expresses 


142  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

the  aboslute  unity  of  God  are  distinguished  by  sub- 
tility  of  conception  and  metaphysical  pregnancy  of 
language  (cf.  XL,  18.  26;  XLI,  4;  XLII,  5;  XLIII, 
10;  XLIV,  6,  8,  24;  XLV,  5,  6,  14,  21,  22;  XLVIL  12). 
Jeremiah's  theory  of  the  selection  of  Israel  being  a  part 
of  the  original  plan  of  creation,  even  more  deeply  con- 
ceived by  this  prophet,  is  made  the  basis  of  all  of  his 
great  promises  for  the  future  (XL,  12,  21,  26,  28; 
XLI,  4,  20;  XLII.  5.  9;  XLIII,  1-7;  XLIV,  2.  24; 
XLV,  7,  9,  10,  12,  18;  XLVIII,  7,  13).  His  independ- 
ence of  both,  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  this  prophet 
manifests  in  his  decidedly  favorable  attitude  to  the 
Thirteen  Attributes.  With  this  formula  he  opens  his 
prophecies  (XL,  1-5),  and  with  it  he  closes  them 
(XLVIII,  3  f.).  Like  Jeremiah  this  prophet,  too, 
sets  to  rest  all  doubts  in  the  question  of  providence  by 
the  thought  that  man  must  have  confidence  in  God 
the  creator  who  certainly  will  not  overreach  his 
creatures  (XL,  12-14,  27-28;  XLV,  11-12,  18-24;  cf. 
LI,  13).  In  this  question,  however,  it  is  the  book  of 
Job  in  which  we  find  the  decisive  progress  in  the 
development. 

b.     The    Book  of  Job  (Ruth  and  Esther). 

The  friends  of  Job  defend,  each  one  of  them  under  a 
particular  point  of  view,  the  theory  of  ths  Thirteen 
Attributes:  God  is  just,  He  does  not  afflict  wantonly ; 
on  the  contrary,  He  is  merciful,  often  forgiving  the 
sinner,  or  long-sufferingly  waiting  for  his  remorse  and 
repentance.  By  their  arguments  Job  is  driven  to 
utterances  the  sting  of  which  is  directed  against  the 
entire  system  underlying  the  theory  of  the  Thirteen 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  143 

Attributes.  This  is  in  the  plan  of  the  writer:  The 
formula  of  Thirteen  is  to  be  attacked.  It  is  to  be 
shown  that  the  mere  ethical  conception  of  the  divine 
attributes  is  not  able  to  cope  with  difficult  situations. 
True,  the  formula  of  Thirteen  can  be  supported  by 
different  arguments,  and  it  is  admitted  that  those 
arguments  explain  very  much,  yet  it  is  just  the  most 
perplexing  cases  for  the  explanation  of  which  the  old 
theory  proves  utterly  insufficient. 

The  solution  of  the  most  perplexing  rest  of  the 
problem  is  introduced  in  the  divine  revelation  in  the 
storm,  this  solution  being:  the  monotheistic  theory 
of  creation  (chaps.  XXXVIII-XLI).  In  this  Job 
aquiesces — Man  cannot  comprehend  the  way  of  God 
(XLII,  1-6).  It  is  in  accordance  with  this  plan  that 
the  author  of  this  book  never  uses  the  name  of  JHVH 
before  the  revelation  on  the  idea  of  creation 
(XXXVIII,  1;  the  name  JHVH  in  the  first  two 
chapters  occurs  only  in  later  interpolations;  also 
XII,  9-13  is  one  of  the  later  Wisdom-interpolations, 
as  easily  recognized,  verse  nine  being  suspicious  enough 
by  the  very  fact  of  its  being  the  only  time  where 
JHVH  occurs  in  the  body  of  the  book  before  the 
revelation  (chaps.  III-XXXVII;  the  divine  names 
preferably  used  in  this  book  are  the  singular  m>K, 
evidently  introduced  by  this  writer,  and  HP).  Thus 
the  progress  in  the  discussion  of  the  problem  of  justice 
in  this  book,  over  and  beyond  Jeremiah  and  Deutero- 
Isaiah.  is  signified  by  the  fact  that  this  writer  accepts 
the  monotheistic  idea. of  creation  as  a  solution  of  the 
most  difficult  rest  of  the  problem  only,  otherwise 
grappling  sincerely  with  the  different  aspects  of  the 


144  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

profound  problem  especially  with  that  involved  in  the 
relationship  of  individual  responsibility  and  family- 
responsibility.  This  writer  draws  on  Ezekiel,  but 
surpasses  him  in  volume  and  depth  of  argumentation: 
The  three  friends  of  Job  (the  speech  of  Elihu, 
chaps.  XXXII-XXXVII  is  a  later  addition,  cf.  below), 
all  of  them,  profess  the  rigid  conception  of  individual 
responsibility:  God  punishes  the  sinner  and  rewards 
the  righteous.  Phenomena  seemingly  contradicting 
this  principle  do  not  prove  much,  for  as  a  rule  the 
prosperity  of  the  sinner  as  well  as  the  suffering  of  the 
righteous  is  of  a  passing  character.  The  end  of  the 
wicked  is  as  a  rule  bitter,  just  as  the  end  of  the  right- 
eous is  happy  as  a  rule.  This  principle  the  friends 
of  Job  emphasize  especially  in  their  first  turns,  but 
also  in  the  second  and  third  (Eliphaz:  IV,  7-12;  XV. 
28-34;  XXII,  5f.  12f.;Bildad:  VIII,  4,  5,  13,  20,  21; 
XVIII,  5-15;  Zophar  XI,  4-14;  XX,  5  f.;  the  third 
speech  of  Zophar  is  submerged  somewhere  in  the  long 
speech  of  Job  in  chaps.  XXVII-XXVIII).  Thus  this 
writer  availed  himself  of  the  great  achievement  of 
Ezekiel,  of  the  more  rigid  conception  of  the  idea  of 
individual  responsibility,  avoiding,  however,  that 
prophet's  radicalism  which,  ignoring  the  real  facts 
of  life,  recognizes  individual  responsibility  as  the  only 
factoi  determining  the  fate  of  man  (leaving  the  fate 
of  a  nation  to  be  decided  by  the  conduct  of  the 
majority,  or  by  that  of  the  leaders).  Our  author  has 
the  debatants  rather  admit  that  the  determination  of 
the  fate  of  the  individual  by  his  own  conduct  is  but 
the  general  rule  from  which  there  are  many  exceptions 
calling  for  special  explanations.     Of  such  explanations 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  145 

the  author  offers  three  in  the  main.     These  distributed 
upon  the  three  friends,  the  dialogue  is  so  arranged  that 
each  one  of  them,  although  in  general  availing  himself 
of  all  of  the  three  explanations,  emphasizes  one  of  them 
as  his  specific  line  of  argument.     This  specific  view- 
point of  his  each  one  of  them  formulates   chiefly   and 
directly  in  his  second  speech,  after  he  has  treated  the 
general   principle  of   individual   responsibility   in   his 
first  speech  in  a  way  preparing  an  opening  wedge  into 
the  trend  of  his  specific  argument;  leaving  the  third 
speech  to  additional  remarks  intended  to  meet  some 
particular  counter-arguments  of  Job's.     Of  these  three 
explanations  Eliphaz  is  entrusted  with  the  one  which 
tries  to  keep  up  the  principle  of  individual  responsi- 
bility as  the  decisive  factor  in  the  fate  of  man  even  in 
such  cases  which,  superficially  observed,  appear  to  be 
outside   of    the    sphere   of   individual    account;    thus 
limiting  the  necessity  to  look  for  other  explanations  to 
some  very  rare  cases.     In  the  first  line  the  thought  is 
advanced  that  no  man  can  ever  be  free  of  sin  altogether, 
even   the  angels  cannot.     If,   then,   a  righteous  man 
suffers,  it  is  evident  that  that  righteous  one  is  righteous 
in  appearance  only  (hinted  at  in  V,  17,  expatiated  on 
in  XV,    14-15;  cf.   Bildad   XXV,   2-6).     This  is   the 
answer  to  Job's  assurance  that  he  felt  free  from  guilt. 
But  when  Job,  in  the  course  of  his  answer  to  the  words 
of   Eliphaz  and   to   those  of  others,   repudiated   the 
thought  of  his  possible  guilt,    Eliphaz  goes  on   less 
sparingly:     The   personal   feeling   is  very  deceptive; 
indeed,  one  moves  within  the  confines  of  common  law, 
and    this   makes   him   think    that   he   was   righteous. 
Especially  there  is  no  reason  for  the  outsider  to  place 


146  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

much  confidence  in  the  assurances  of  the  allegedly 
innocent  sufferer  and  to  permit  himself  to  be  shaken 
by  them  in  his  belief  in  individual  responsibility.  On 
the  contrary,  there  is  all  reason  to  believe  that  the 
afflicted  in  question  was  righteous  only  speciously  while 
in  reality  engaged  in  exploiting  and  oppressing  the 
weak,  arranging  it  so  cleverly  as  to  have  them  believe 
he  was  their  benefactor  or  at  least  that  he  was  not 
depriving  them  of  their  rights.  And  as  to  his  con- 
science, his  fear  of  God?  That  "righteous"  does  not 
believe  in  divine  omniscience  and  providence  (XXII, 
5f.,  12f.).  This  much  for  the  explanation  of  the 
suffering  of  the  "righteous,"  the  really  "ighteous  man 
suffers  only  very  seldom,  if  at  all.  As  regards  the 
prosperity  of  the  wicked,  it  is  to  be  admitted  that  the 
argument  of  the  secretly  righteous  is  not  well  appli- 
cable. There  is,  however,  another  explanation  not 
applicable  in  the  case  of  the  suffering  righteous:  You 
cannot  possibly  explain  the  suffering  of  the  righteous 
to  be  only  simulated  or  illusory.  The  cases  of  real 
suffering  of  the  righteous,  suffering  of  an  easily  discern- 
ible nature,  are  too  frequent  as  to  be  denied.  But  you 
may  declare  the  happiness  of  the  wicked  to  be  simu- 
lated and  illusory.  The  really  wicked  knows  no 
tranquillity  of  mind  nor  peace  of  heart;  remorse 
tortures  him,  and  he  lives  in  terror  and  anguish  all 
his  days,  notably  in  sleepless  nights  and  bad  dreams 
(XV,  20-27;  cf.  Zophar  XX,  20). 

Of  course,  rare  as  they  may  be,  there  are  such  cases 
to  which  none  of  the  explanations  offered  in  the 
preceding  would  apply,  but  there  are  other  ways  of 
meeting  difficult  cases.     Foremost  among  these  is  the 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  147 

return  to  the  principle  underlying  the  Thirteen 
Attributes,  the  principle  of  the  account  of  merit  and 
guilt  running  through  the  generations,  which  was 
given  up  entirely  by  Ezekiel  but  taken  up  again  by  the 
author  of  the  book  of  Job.  The  task  to  defend  this 
principle  is  allotted  to  Bildad,  who  tries  to  explain  by 
it  those  cases  in  which  the  other  explanations  would 
not  work  (hinted  at  VIII,  7;  expatiated  on  in  the 
second  speech:  XVIII,  17-21;  cf.  Eliphaz  V,  4-25; 
ZopharXX,  10;  Is.  XIV,  21). 

For  the  explanation  of  still  other  cases  to  which  the 
principle  of  the  tribal  or  family  account  may  not  apply, 
the  author  falls  back  upon  another  principle  underly- 
ing the  Thirteen  Attributes:  Repentance  and  Mercy. 
This  is  the  specific  line  of  argument  which  Zophar 
is  made  to  represent:  If  a  righteous  man  suffers,  this 
may  have  for  its  purpose  the  warning  in  time  of  that 
otherwise  righteous  man  against  certain  evil  inclina- 
tions which  begin  to  take  hold  of  him.  in  order  that  he 
might  search  his  ways  and  purify  them,  so  that  his 
affliction  would  render  him  even  more  worthy  of  the 
divine  graciousness  and  mercy  than  he  was  before. 
And  also  the  happiness  of  the  wicked  finds  an  easy 
explanation  in  one  of  the  attributes  of  mercy,  in  the 
attribute  of  long-suffering.  By  way  of  mercy  the  wicked 
is  given  a  chance  to  repent  and  to  mend  his  ways. 
Only  when  the  sinner  so  graciously  spared  lets  this 
opportunity  pass  by  without  availing  himself  of  the 
respite  for  doing  penance,  the  penalty  incurred  over- 
takes him  inevitably.  And  then  it  overtakes  not  only 
him  himself,  but  also  his  issue,  and  that  not  only  on 
account  of  tribal  or  family  responsibility,  but  also,  and 


148  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


especially,  on  account  of  the  circumstance  that  the 
issue  of  the  unreclaimable  sinner  usually  walk  in  the 
ways  of  their  parents  and,  like  them,  they  are  caught 
in  the  net  of  individual  responsibility;  an  argument 
by  which  the  counter-argument  of  heredity  as  reducing 
the  responsibility  is  very  perceptibly  touched  upon 
(XI,  12-15;  XX,  10;  cf.  Eliphaz  V,  18;  XXII,  27). 

It  is  this  argument,  specifically  expounded  by 
Zophar,  that  Elihu  enlarges  upon,  adding  color  to  it 
by  the  intimation  that  the  suffering  of  the  righteous 
in  itself  may  be  considered  a  means  to  make  him 
worthy  of  more  divine  grace,  just  as  the  prosperity  of 
the  wicked  in  itself  may  be  but  the  forerunner,  nay, 
the  producer  of  coming  disaster:  The  righteous  is 
often  tried  by  suffering,  and  when  he  stands  the  test 
his  later  prosperity  is  all  the  greater.  Likewise  the 
sinner  would  often  be  tried  by  prosperity,  and  when 
he  fails  to  stand  the  test,  his  downfall  will  be  the  more 
crushing,  the  higher  he  has  climbed  upon  the  ladder 
of  happiness  (XXXVI,  5f.). 

The  answers  of  the  friends  of  Job,  we  have  seen  in 
the  preceding,  are  directed  against  the  question  of  why 
the  righteous  suffers  and  the  wicked  prospers,  raised 
by  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Habakkuk,andDeutero- 
Isaiah  (cf.  also  Mai.  Ill,  13-21).  And  essentially  it  is 
the  same  question  in  the  discussion  of  which  the 
author  of  the  book  engages  Job  and  his  friends.  But 
this  writer  extends  his  task  in  that  he  goes  beyond 
those  immediate  problems  of  justice,  taking  up  the 
comprehensive  discussion  of  the  entire  problem  of  God 
and  Providence.  The  contemporaries  of  some  of  the 
prophets  who  were  less  firm  in  their  faith,  never  doubt- 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  149 

ed  the  existence  of  God,  and  even  God's  might  was  not 
subject  to  any  doubt.  Some  of  them  would  doubt  the 
justice  of  God  inasmuch  as  they  doubted  the  justice 
of  the  principle  of  national  responsibility ;  others  again 
doubted  God's  knowledge  of  what  was  going  on  in 
Palestine,  because  they  doubted,  not  His  omniscience 
in  itself,  but  His  interest  in  Israel  and  his  land,  saying: 
"JHVH  abandons  the  land,  JHVH  considers  us  not" 
(Ez.  VIII,  12;  IX,  9;  cf.  Is.  XXIX,  15;  Zeph.  I,  12; 
Is.  XL,  27-28;  XLVII,  10;  cf.  Echa  III,  1-17;  the 
national  complaint  in  the  sense  of  the  problem  of  Job; 
to  which  complaint  verses  18-66  are  the  answer  in  the 
sense  of  Zophar  and  Elihu;  especially  in  the  verses 
25-39;  verses  37  and  38  emphasize  in  this  connection 
that  even  misfortune  comes  from  God;  cf.  I,  18-22). 
The  author  of  the  book  of  Job,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
bent  on  refuting  the  more  radical  attacks  on  the 
doctrines  of  Judaism  about  God  and  His  ways.  The 
figure  of  Job  amid  the  circumstances  as  conceived  by 
the  author,  answers  this  purpose.  The  arguments  of 
the  friends,  especially  their  insistence  on  the  principle 
of  individual  responsibility,  evoke  in  the  terribly 
suffering  hero  who  feels  deeply  hurt  in  his  consciousness 
of  absolute  innocence,  an  irritated  state  of  mind  in 
which  he  would  permit  himself  to  be  carried  away  and 
to  give  utterance  to  thoughts  otherwise  foreign  to 
that  pious  man.  And  in  this,  too,  the  object  of  the 
author  is  to  drive  it  home  to  the  reader  that  even  the 
most  pious  man,  unless  he  has  the  conviction  of 
monotheistic  creation,  is  exposed  to  the  most  radical 
doubts  in  difficult  situations.  Thus  Job  in  the 
waverings  of  his  mind  is  representative  of  all  possible 


150  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

attitudes  in  our  problem.  He  considers  in  passing 
even  the  idea  of  Fatum  (III,  8;  VII,  1;  XIV,  4). 
Prophecy  to  which  Eliphaz  refers  for  the  support  of 
the  principle  of  individual  responsibility  (IV,  13;  cf. 
XXXIII,  1  ),  has  but  little  authority  with  him 
(VI,  6:  vagary  of  dreams?)  The  attributes  of  mercy 
of  the  Formula  of  Thirteen  are  hardly  perceptible  in  the 
workings  of  reality;  at  any  rate,  not  in  his  own  case 
(VI,  10;  VII,  21;  IX,  13;  X,  14;  XIII,  15  (1Wf)_; 
XIV,  17;  XVI,  13).  It  is  rather  the  attributes  of 
rigid  justice  which  are  constantly  in  evidence.  And  in 
this  God  goes  so  far  as  to  destroy  even  the  wholly 
innocent,  simply  because  He  is  the  almighty,  and 
nobody  has  the  power  to  prevent  him  from  gratifying 
His  whims  (IX,  22;  XVI,  9-17;  XIX,  6,  11,  21,  22; 
XXI,  22-26;  XXIII,  12;  ch.  XXIV:  the  world  is  full 
of  the  most  cruel  injustices).  Nor  does  equalization 
in  the  course  of  generations  (as  suggested  by  one  of  the 
thirteen  attributes)  make  itself  felt  in  the  workings  of 
reality.  For  aside  from  the  fact  that  there  is  no 
knowledge  after  death  about  what  the  fate  of  one's 
offspring  was  (XIV,  21-22;  cf.  below),  experience 
rather  suggests  the  rule  of  the  posterity  of  the  right- 
eous suffering  and  that  of  the  wicked  being  prosperous 
(XVII,  5;  XXII,  9).  He  goes  so  far  as  to  intimate 
that  it  is  the  wicked  who  have  all  the  evidence  on  their 
side;  those  who  rely  upon  their  own  power  and  their 
own  circumspection,  not  wishing  to  have  anything  to 
do  with  God,  thus  repudiating  not  only  the  idea  of 
providence,  but  the  idea  of  God's  existence  as  well 
(XXI,  13-14).  With  this  the  skepticism  of  Job 
reaches  its  climax,  and  although  he  immediately  gives 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  151 

the  assurance  that  "the  counsel  (view)  of  the  ungodly 
is  remote  from  him"  (XXI,  16),  he  is  most  violently 
attacked  therefor  by  Eliphaz  in  his  immediately 
following  third  speech.  Eliphaz  does  not  go  so  far  as 
to  accuse  Job  of  denial  of  the  existence  of  God,  but 
he  professes  to  suspect  him  that  he  does  not  believe 
in  divine  providence  so  that  nothing  prevents  him 
from  practicing  injustice  in  secret  (XX,  12f ;  cf.  above). 
The  situation  built  up  by  the  author  permits  the  hero 
to  be  inconsistent  in  his  views  and  utterances.  And 
so  we  often  find  Job  in  the  mood  of  seeing  things  in  the 
same  light  as  his  friends,  and  often  even  of  surpassing 
the  latter  in  his  confidence  in  the  omnipotence, 
omniscience  and  extreme  justice  of  God  (some  of  the 
passages  referred  to,  especially  in  ch.  XXVII,  may,  of 
course,  have  belonged  originally  to  the  friends).  So  the 
author  of  the  book  of  Job  created  the  figure  of  a  hero 
who  in  his  wavering  attitudes  represents  all  tenden- 
cies current  in  his  time,  from  the  most  radical  views 
of  the  godless  to  the  most  intense  confidence  in  God 
of  the  really  pious  and  God-fearing  souls  in  the  land. 
The  friends  are  meant  by  the  author  to  defend  the  old 
views,  even  though  with  new,  or,  at  least,  improved, 
weapons,  while  Job  is  to  represent  no  definite  attitude, 
but  rather  the  different  and  conflicting  tendencies  of 
the  age. 

It  is  in  accordance  with  this  character  of  the  hero 
that  also  the  eschatological  attempts  at  solving  the 
problem  of  justice  are  put  by  the  author  in  the  mouth 
of  Job.  This  explanation,  known  from  of  old,  had  been 
strenuously  kept  back  by  all  the  previous  prophets 
and  writers.     But  at  the  time  when  the  book  of  Job 


152  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

was  written,  a  wave  of  eschatological  excitement  seems 
to  have  been  going  very  high  among  the  people.  The 
political  conditions  favored  the  development  of  the 
politico-eschatological  apocalypse  of  messianic  redemp- 
tion (cf.  Ez.  chaps.  XXXVI-XXXIX;  Is.  chaps. 
XXIII-XXVII;  LIX,  17-LXVI,  24;  Zech.  XII, 
1-XIII,  6;  ch.  XIV),  while  the  general  cosmological 
tendencies  of  the  age  were  favoring  also  the  develop- 
ment of  individual  eschatology.  This  could  be  also 
of  a  this  worldy  nature,  (cf.  Mai.  Ill,  17-21),  but  more 
than  for  such  that  age  was  longing  for  a  hereafter- 
eschatology.  The  author  of  this  book  which  tries  to 
carry  its  Judaism  rather  incognito,  naturally  could  not 
consider  political  eschatology,  thus  he  concentrates  his 
interest  on  individual  exchatology.  But  he  puts  this, 
in  the  literature  of  that  time,  entirely  new  suggestion 
for  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  justice,  not  in  the 
mouths  of  Job's  friends,  the  respresentatives  of  the  old 
view,  but  in  that  of  Job  himself,  the  representative  of 
the  general  tendencies  of  that  age. 

The  general  view  of  the  author  on  the  soul  as  a 
substance  seems  to  be  identical  with  that  of  Ezekiel. 
"Ruah  JHVH"  designates  an  emanation  of  the  divine 
substance  as  contradistinctive  of  the  flesh  (ittO),  the 
corporeal  (cf.  X,  4).  This  "Ruah"  is  also  the  "Ruah" 
of  prophecy  as  understood  by  Ezekiel  (Eliphaz  IV,  16; 
Zophar  XX,  3).  And  also  the  identity  of  this  "Ruah" 
with  wind  or  storm  observed  at  times  in  Ezekiel,  is 
perceivable  here  (comp.  IV,  6  with  XXXVIII,  1;  cf. 
also  XXXVI  1,9).  This  latter  idea  seems  to  be  mean  t 
as  the  platform  common  to  all  persons  in  the  cast. 
But  when  it  comes  to  the  particular  question  of  the 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  153 

individual  soul-substance,  the  author  assigns  to  the 
friends,  the  representatives  of  the  old  vie>v,  an  attitude 
of  silence;  moreover  at  times  where  this  veil  of  silence 
seems  rather  lifted  for  a  while,  the  author  puts  in  the 
mouths  of  the  friends  now  the  plaint,  now  the  confes- 
sion, that  man  is  or  turns  into  "clay,"  "earth,"  or 
"dust"  and  "vermin,"  and  perishes  forever  (Eliphaz 
IV,  19-21 ;  Bildad  XXV,  6).  Job  on  the  other  hand  is 
pictured  as  wavering  between  this  attitude  and  a 
pesitive  eschatological  hope.  Now  he  considers  the 
"Sheol"  which  in  our  book  connotes  the  general  idea 
of  the  unknown  beyond,  as  the  end  of  all  things  when 
man  resolves  wholly  into  clay,  earth,  dust  or  vermin; 
only  in  order  to  speak  immediately  of  the  individual 
soul  as  of  an  independent  spirtual  substance,  giving 
utterance  to  more  or  less  definite  eschatological  hopes 
(VII,  8f,  21  ;X,  9, 12,  21,  22;  XII.  10;  this  definite  con- 
trast between  £>DJ  and  "IKO  seems  to  be  a  later 
interpolation;  XIV.  11-22,  XVI,  22;  XVII,  13-16; 
XXI,  26;  XXVII,  3:  "as  long  as  my  noe>J  is  in  me, 
and  the  m>K  nn  in  my  nostrils;"  cf.  XXX,  19-23; 
Is.  LVII,  16:  God  as  creator  of  the  soul  from  the 
"Ruah;"  to  the  idea  of  immortality  cf,  also  Is.  XXV, 
8:  obscure;  XXVI,  14,  19:  resurrection,  but  for  Jews 
only;  the  text  however  seems  to  have  undergone  a 
revision,  the  original  suggesting  rather  metaphorically 
political  resurrection).  And  while  in  most  of  his 
utterances  Job  appears  inclined  to  believe  that  the 
existence  of  the  individual  reaches  its  goal  in  the 
moment  of  his  death,  yet  his  eschatological  hope  goes 
at  times  so  high  as  to  give  once  room  to  a  thought 
which   has  been   through  the  ages  and  still   is  very 


154  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

important  as  an  element  of  development  in  the 
positive  trend  of  the  eschatological  hope  for  immor- 
tality: "If  there  be  life  after  death?  All  the  days 
of  my  destiny  would  I  look  forward  to  the  coming  of  my 
turn.  Thou  wilt  call,  and  I  will  respond  Thee.  Thou 
wilt  long  for  Thy  handiwork."  This  would  reconcile 
him  to  his  lot,  being  assured  that  God  is  not  upon  the 
watch  to  get  man  in  the  net  of  sin  thrown  out  by  His 
revengeful  omnipotence  (XIV,  13-16).  These  words 
of  highest  hopes  follow  upon  and  are  followed  upon  by 
such  of  deepest  despair  (10-12;  17-22).  This  is 
corresponding  to  the  wavering  mood  of  the  age  to 
which  the  figure  of  Job  is  to  lend  expression.  In  the 
age  not  too  far  remote  from  this  (most  likely  before 
the  Esra  Covenant,  that  which  produced  the  speech 
of  Elihu),  the  concept  of  the  spiritual  substance  of 
the  individual  soul  expressed  by  Job  solidifies,  as  also 
the  definite  hope  that  the  soul,  coming  as  she  does 
from  God,  will  surely  return  to  Him  (XXXII,  8; 
XXXIII,  4;  XXXIV,  14,  15). 

Thus  Job  and  his  friends  have  discussed  the  prob- 
lem of  justice  from  all  sides,  attempting  to  establish 
the  doctrine  of  divine  justice  ruling  the  world  on  the 
ground  of  the  ethical  attributes  of  God.  Not  that 
the  cosmological  aspect  of  the  question  was  never 
touched  upon  in  the  discussion  between  Job  and  his 
friends.  On  the  contrary,  the  author  in  his  endeavor 
to  give  a  faithful  picture  of  all  the  currents  character- 
izing the  age  in  which  he  lived,  often  creates  occasion 
for  Job  and  his  friends  to  avail  themselves  also  of 
cosmological  arguments  in  vogue.  The  greatness,  the 
wisdom  and  the  omnipotence  of  God  are  incompre- 
hensible  to   man    (of  passages  of  this   nature   there 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  155 

remain  enough  even  after  due  deduction  of  those 
"wisdom"- passages  which  most  likely  were  interpol- 
ated in  the  Greek  period;  cf.  Geschichted.  jued.  Phil. 
II,  1,  p.  148f  and  156f.).  Still,  the  author  in  his  very 
wise  economy  reserved  for  the  great  climax  of  his 
philosophic  drama  two  new  features  of  prime  import- 
ance : 

First :  The  views  on  creation  expressed  by  Job  and 
his  friends,  especially  those  expressed  by  the  formei  as 
the  representative  of  his  time,  are  based  on  Ezekiel's 
cosmogony  and  his  doctrines  of  Mercabah  and  angels 
(Eliphaz  IV,  16-18;  Job.  VI,  10;  God  is  called  Wip; 
IX,  5-13:  Thiamath-myth  (cultivated  under  the  new 
Babylonian  influence;  cf.  Tholdoth  p.  86);  XII,  7f; 
XXV,  7f;  specially  v.  8:  Mercabah  and  v.  12:  Thia- 
math-myth; Bildad:  XXV,  3;  doctrine  of  angels,  the 
same  Elihu  XXXIII,  23).  As  against  these  currents 
of  his  age  the  author  of  the  book  of  Job  proposes  to  lay 
emphasis  on  the  monotheistic  theory  of  creation  in  the 
spirit  of  Jeremiah.  The  author  of  the  book,  too, 
seems  to  believe  in  angels,  but  in  his  opinion  they  are 
creations  of  God,  not  eternal  beings  as  they  were  con- 
ceived of  in  previous  times,  and  as  it  was  still  believed 
by  the  adherents  of  the  Ezekielian  school  in  the  age 
of  the  author  (XXXVIII,  7;  Is.  XXIV,  21; 
LXIII,  9;  Zech.  chap.  I-VII;  XII,  8;  (Mai.  Ill,  1 
evidently  refers  to  Esra) ;  and  also  the  passages  on 
Satan,  in  Job.  chaps.  I-II  and  Zech.  Ill,  1,  2).  This 
was  an  anticipation  of  the  compromise  carried  out  by 
authoritative  Judaism  in  a  later  period. 

Second:  The  author  insists  that  while  the  argu- 
ments advanced  by  the  friends  explain  much,  the  effect 
of  it  all  is  not  the  one  desired  for,  namely  acquiescence 


156  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

in  the  j  ustice  of  God ,  but  rather  a  wavering  attitude  ex- 
posed to  the  spurs  and  whims  of  the  moment.  The 
friends,  that  is  the  idea  the  author  evidently  wants  to 
convey  to  us,  even  though  they  do  allude  to  cosmologi- 
cal  aspects  now  and  then,  yet  they  lay  the  chief  em- 
phasis upon  those  arguments  which  developed  within 
the  sphere  of  ethical  speculation;  while  what  is 
absolutely  necessary  is  to  balance  the  weight  of  the 
argument  to  the  cosmological  aspect.  All  the  argu- 
ments advanced  by  Job  and  his  friends  may  at  best  be 
able  to  ward  off  the  attacks  upon  the  idea  of  God  and 
His  justice,  but  anything  like  a  positive  proof  for  the 
reality  of  God  and  His  justice  must  be  sought  for 
under  the  cosmological  aspect,  and  only  after  this  had 
been  done  there  is  a  possibility  to  find  positive  indica- 
tions of  the  reality  of  divine  justice  also  within  the 
sphere  of  the  ethical: 

He  who  orients  himself  in  the  whole  of  God's 
creation,  learning  to  admire  the  harmony  in  the  plan  of 
the  universe  which  embraces  all  things,  great  and 
small,  and  who  perceives  the  divine  loving  care  for 
all  that  lives  and  feels  in  the  entire  realm  of  nature  in 
its  growth  and  becoming;  particularly  he  who  recog- 
nizes the  divine  source  not  only  of  the  omnipotence 
manifest  in  living  nature,  but  especially  also  of  the 
cognitive  powers  of  understanding  as  awakened  in  the 
wonderful  organism  of  man — he  will  never  doubt 
God's  existence,  His  justice,  His  love,  and  His  mercy; 
he  will  never  despair  of  his  own  higher  nature,  nor 
consider  death  as  the  end  of  all  things  (XXXVIII, 
17).  And  to  this  recognition  the  author  helps  the 
reader  by  the   explication  of  the  cosmological  proof 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  157 

for  the  existence  of  God  and  His  justice.  This  proof 
was  first  introduced  by  Jeremiah  and  further  developed 
by  Deutero-Isaiah  in  his  appeal  to  man  to  look  at 
the  eternal  immutable  order  of  heavens,  but  the 
author  of  Job  heightens  the  power  of  the  cosmological 
argument  by  a  grand  picture  of  nature  comprehending 
all  the  realms  of  becoming  and  all  the  sources  of 
energy,    life,    and    intellect    (chap.    XXXVIII-XLI: 

XXXVIII,  4-12:  cosmological;  vv.  13-15:  rigid 
justice;   vv.     16-38:    cosmological;    XXXVIII,     39- 

XXXIX,  30:  the  cosmological  and  ethical  love  of 
God  embracing  all  living  nature;  the  same  repeated 
in  chaps.  XL  and  XLL). 

Thus  the  God-conception  and  the  principle  of 
retribution  receive  a  thorough  discussion  in  the  book 
of  Job,  and  also  the  question  of  soul  and  immortality 
appears  perceptibly  furthered  in  connection  with 
these  two  principles.  Of  the  other  theoretical  prin- 
ciples that  of  free  will  is  implicitly  contained  in  the 
principle  of  retribution,  and  appears  to  be  directly 
attacked  only  in  the  idea  of  Fatum,  indirectly  of 
course  also  through  the  attacks  on  the  God-idea 
altogether  (An  allusion  to  the  idea  of  determinism 
we  find  in  Is.  XLVIII,  8,  but  this  prophet  appeased 
all  doubts  with  the  reassurance  that  the  workings  of 
the  Creator  are  unsearchable;  cf.  above).  Also  the 
principle  of  prophecy  appears  as  the  object  of  a 
direct  attack.  Evidently  there  were  those  who  have 
taken  a  hesitating  attitude  towards  the  belief  that 
God  reveals  himself  to  man.  To  this  attitude  ex- 
pression is  given  in  Job's  answer  to  Eliphaz'  first 
speech   in    which   the   latter  refers   to   a   prophetical 


158  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

revelation  (VI,  7 ;  cf.  above) ;  only  to  reconsider  it  soon 
and  to  come  back  to  his  own  standpoint  according 
to  which  there  is  no  denying  of  the  prophetic  character 
and  thus  of  the  reliability  of  the  "words  of  the  Holy 
One"  (v.  10).  In  fact,  Job  concludes  his  argument 
with  the  prayer,  God  may  deign  to  privilege  him  with 
a  revelation  (XXXI,  35).  And  this  petition  was 
granted  him  (XXXVIII,  1-XL,  1-6) :  This  prophetic 
revelation  conveys  to  Job  and  to  the  world  at  large 
the  cosmological  proof  for  the  existence  of  God  and 
his  just  and  merciful  providence  over  his  creation. 
With  the  cosmological  God-conception,  the  author 
means  to  say,  prophecy  has  reached  its  highest 
degree.  The  author  denies  in  no  wise  the  prophetic 
dignity  of  the  ethical  God-conception  as  defended 
by  the  friends  of  Job,  but  the  new,  the  cosmological, 
God-conception  is  to  him  the  prophetic  God-con- 
ception. This  we  can  easily  concede  to  the  author: 
The  completion  of  the  God-conception  from  the  cos- 
mological aspect  as  conceived  by  Jeremiah,  signifies 
indeed  the  height  of  the  prophets'  achievement  in 
their  effort  to  establish  the  theoretical  principles  of 
Judaism.  Nevertheless,  the  book  of  Job  gives  us 
definite  information  about  the  reaction  in  the  notion 
of  prophecy.  Let  us  recall  that  the  last  report  of  a 
revelation  in  a  dream  is  the  prophetic  dream  of 
King  Solomon.  Now  the  first  prophetic  dream 
reported  of  post-Deuteronomic  times  is  the  one  in 
which  Eliphaz  is  reassured  of  the  truth  of  the  prin- 
ciple of  individual  responsibility  (IV,  12-21).  And 
Elihu,  too,  scolds  Job  for  his  negating  attitude 
towards  the  possibility  of  a  divine  revelation,  be  it 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  159 


for  the  purpose  of  composing  theoretical  doubts,  be 
it  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  about  help  in  distress, 
insisting  that  dreams  are  the  most  excellent  means  for 
divine  revelations  (XXXIII,  13f).  And  the  way 
how  in  these  two  passages  dreams  are  introduced  as 
a  medium  of  revelation,  shows  clearly  that  there 
was  the  realization  of  the  novelty  of  that  feature. 
In  fact,  it  was  something  new,  it  was  the  reawakening 
and  relegitimatizing  of  an  old  idea  long  ago  given 
up  in  the  circles  of  legitimate  prophets;  a  change 
brought  about  through  the  new  contact  with  the 
Neo-Babylonians(cf.  Joel  III,  2,  but  also  Is.  XLVII, 
9f;  LIX,  21;cf.  also  above  as  to  Deuteronomy  and 
Ezekiel;  Is.  LXI,  If.  and  Zech.  X,  2).  Thus  the 
book  of  Job  on  the  one  hand  signifies  progress  in  the 
conception  of  prophecy  in  its  function:  Prophecy 
conveys  not  only  practical  postulates  and  ethical 
guidance,  but  over  and  beyond  this  it  aids  man 
through  the  revelation  of  a  deeper  insight  into  the 
coherence  of  things  and  events,  serving  the  great 
purpose  of  appeasing  doubts  and  solving  perplexities 
besetting  the  religious  mind  (cf.  Hab.  II,  1-8:  there 
the  Job-problem  of  Ch.  1  is  answered  in  a  prophetic 
vision).  On  the  other  hand,  however,  the  book  of  Job 
is  indicative  of  a  reaction  in  the  conception  of  the 
medium  of  revelation.  This  may  account  for  the  senti- 
ment of  the  prophet  who  foresees  the  time  coming 
when  one  would  be  ashamed  to  confess  to  having  had 
a  prophetic  vision  (Zech.  XIII,  2-6;  as  to  W?n  in 
v.  4,  this  word  seems  to  have  become  at  that 
time  synonymous  with  "dream;"  cf.  Job  IV,  13; 
XX,   8;  XXXIII,   14;  Joel   III,    1;  also  Zech.   I,   8; 


160  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

IV,  1 ;  the  prophetic  visions  of  Zechariah  remind  one 
very  strikingly  of  Ezekiel:  "The  Man,"  'The 
speaking  Angel,"  "The  Scroll"  V,  If;  "The  Mercabah" 
VI,  If;  in  general  Zechariah  appears  to  have  been  one 
of  the  most  decided  representatives  of  the  Ezekielan 
school;  cf.  also  Echa  II,  9,  14;  IV,  13).  However,  at 
the  decisive  final  revelation  the  author  of  the  book  of 
Job  omits  the  dream,  thus,  perhaps,  also  in  this 
question  signifying  his  allegiance  to  the  principles  of 
Jeremiah. 

And  also  about  the  higher  expressions  of  cultural 
life  of  the  age  we  can  derive  some  valuable  information 
from  the  book  of  Job. 

The  author  of  the  book  of  Job  subdues  his  Judaism 
to  a  stage  of  incognito,  and  for  this,  if  for  no  other 
reason,  we  hardly  can  look  to  the  book  for  any  direct 
information  about  specific  Jewish  religious  cultural  life. 
In  addition,  this  book,  as  the  entire  series  of  literary 
units  of  this  period  mentioned  above,  was  written  in  the 
exile  where  the  cultural  entity  of  the  Jews  was  very 
much  reduced,  as  they  were  necessarily  following  the 
advice  of  Jeremiah  to  cultivate  a  certain  cultural 
communion  with  the  Babylonians.  So,  for  instance, 
we  find  in  the  book  of  Job  a  reference  to  a  new  musical 
instrument  named  'Ugab  (XXI,  12;  XXX,  31:  2M), 
never  mentioned  in  the  literary  products  of  preceding 
periods.  Evidently  this  instrument  was  adopted  by 
the  Jews  in  the  exile  from  their  environment.  To 
this  points  also  the  fact  that  all  nominal  and  verbal 
forms  of  this  root  (2ty)  occur  in  Jeremiah  and 
Ezekiel  only,  as,  indeed,  the  instrument  itself  is 
mentioned  (aside  from  the  late  Psalm  CL,  4)  by  one 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  161 


more  writer  only,  who  is  also  otherwise  specifically 
known    for   his   Babylonian   connaissances    (J2  Gen. 
IV,  21).     This,  however,  is  all  that  is  found  in  this 
book  of  references  to  art  in  the  technical  sense  of  the 
word.     The  author  betrays  his  Judaism,  aside  from 
the  entire  trend  of  his  speculation,  based  as  it  is  on  the 
previous  development  of  the  problem  by  the  prophet?, 
in  several  allusions  to  the  first  Book  of  the  Covenant 
and  Deuteronomy.     But  in  the  actions  praised  by 
him  as  good  or  blamed  as  evil  we  find  no  allusion  to 
idolatry.     And  this  is  all  the  more  significant  in  sight 
of  the  fact  that  the  other  prophets  and  writers  of  that 
period  complain  so  much  of  idolatry,  and  forbidden 
image-worship  and  speak  even  much  of  a  very  intense 
cultivation  of  the  unlawful  plastic  arts  (Is.  XL,  19-20; 
XLI,   5-7;  XLIV,   9-20:  a   lively  picture  of  a  very 
brisk  industry  in  drawing,  crayon  and  carving- work, 
verse  13  ;XLV,  20;XLVI,  1,  6,  7;XLIX,  16:Tatooing; 
LVII,  5-8 ;  LXV,  3-7,  11 ;  LXVII,  3,  17  ;  Zech.  XIII,  2). 
Of  course,  we  could  account  for  this  by  the  supposition 
that  the  book  of  Job  was  written  at  a  time  when,  under 
the  influence  of  the  monotheistic  theory  of  creation, 
idolatry  had  entirely  disappeared,  namely  in  the  time 
after  the  Esra-Covenant  (cf.  below).     But,  there  are 
various  reasons  which  do  not  permit  to  date  the  book 
too  late,  especially  the  original  book  of  Job  which  may 
not  have  had  the  final  revelation.     This  original  seems 
to  have  been  written  simply  as  a  defense  of  justice 
as  expressed  in  the  formula  of  Thirteen.     The  final 
redactor  of  the  book  (still  without  the  Satan-story, 
at  the  beginning  and  the  reward  at  the  end)  changed 
many  particulars  so  as  to  adopt  it  to  his  plan,  namely 


162  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

to  use  what  was  originally  a  final  defense  of  justice  as 
partial  defense  only,  leaving  room  for  the  new  feature 
introduced  by  him,  namely  the  revelation  in  storm  of 
the  cosmological  proof  of  the  monotheistic  theory  of 
creation  as  the  final  answer  to  all  vexing  queries  which 
the  realities  of  life  thrust  upon  the  believer  in  God  and 
His  justice.  This  process  of  literary  development 
given  due  consideration,  it  becomes  clear  that  the  book 
cannot  be  dated  too  late,  and  that  the  original  book 
of  Job  preceded  the  Esra-Covenant,  or  at  least,  was 
written  at  a  time  close  to  it  (this  especially  if  we  con- 
sider the  late  dating  of  Esra  in  vogue  in  our  days). 
The  absence  of  all  allusion  to  idolatry  in  the  book  of 
Job  is  therefore  best  explained  out  of  the  general  spirit 
of  the  book  which  clearly  suggests  that  the  question  of 
idolatry  was  entirely  outside  of  the  sphere  of  interest 
of  the  author  of  the  book. 

This  leads  us  to  an  appreciation  of  the  book  of  Job 
in  its  significance  as  a  literary  product  and  in  its  con- 
ception of  Judaism  as  a  world-religion;  the  latter 
aspect  comprising  the  questions  of  religious  laws  and 
universalism. 

For  force  of  language  in  poetry  and  prophecy,  as 
also  for  masterful  historic  prose,  the  preceding  period 
has  been  designated  as  the  classic  period  of  Hebrew 
literature.  And  this  holds  true  also  as  to  the  con- 
ceiving of  new  religious  and  artistic  motifs.  Our 
period,  as,  indeed,  all  the  later  ages  up  to  our  own  day, 
in  spite  of  the  very  brilliant  new  creations  in  language, 
form  and  thought,  draws  largely  on  the  inexhaustible 
funds  of  that  classic  period.  Yet,  regarding  the 
systematic  arrangement  of  details  and  their  elabora- 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  163 

tion  into  an  ensemble,  the  development  in  Hebrew 
literature  is  moving  in  an  ascending  line.  Not  con- 
sidering the  historic  writings  whose  systematic 
arrangement  is  determined  by  the  chronological 
sequence,  we  do  find  prophecies  of  a  very  high  artistic 
polish  in  pre-Deuteronomic  times,  but  only  small 
units,  the  sketching  of  which  while  requiring  great 
literary  mastery  of  form,  by  no  means  requires  great 
powers  of  conception  and  composition.  In  fact 
Deuteronomy  with  its  systematic  arrangement  of 
theoretical  principles  and  the  corresponding  practical 
laws  derived  from  those  principles  (cf.  above),  signifies 
a  very  perceptible  progress  in  this  direction.  A  more 
advanced  phase  of  development  is  represented  by  the 
book  of  Ezekiel  with  its  masterly  woven  motif  of  attri- 
butes. Our  period,  however,  goes  in  the  perfection 
of  the  art  of  literary  composition  far  beyond  the  stage 
reached  in  the  book  of  Ezekiel.  The  author  of  the 
book  of  Job  borrows  its  motifs  of  attributes  from  the 
book  of  Ezekiel  modifying  them  in  accordance  with 
his  purposes.  There  the  divine  names  of  Shadday 
and  Adonay  JHVH  are  the  fore-stages,  JHVH  the 
reached  goal,  The  same  is  the  case  in  Job,  only  that 
here  the  temporary  name  Adonay  JHVH  is  supplanted 
by  the  name  Eloha  (singular  of  Elohim).  In  Ezekiel 
we  find  visions  of  angels  and  Mercabah,  and  so  also  in 
Job,  except  that  in  the  latter  the  angels  and  the 
Mercabah  are  but  fore-stages,  representing  the  views 
current  in  the  age  of  the  author,  while  he  himself 
argues  the  case  of  the  monotheistic  theory  of  creation 
after  the  fashion  of  Jeremiah.  As  in  Ezekiel  so  also 
in  Job  the  inquiry  into  the  justice  of  the  ways  of  God 


164  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

is  the  central  problem.  Only  that  in  the  book  of  Job 
the  problem  is  entered  into  more  deeply,  Ezekiel's 
one-sidedness  in  the  emphasis  laid  upon  individual 
responsibility  and  the  dogmatism  regarding  the  full 
solvability  of  the  problem  put  on  a  broader  basis,  a 
fact  which  finds  expression  also  in  the  extension  of  the 
discussion  from  the  problems  of  justice  to  the  prob- 
lems of  God  and  the  human  soul.  This  broadening 
and  endeepment  of  the  problem  called  for  the  display 
of  greater  skill  in  composition,  such  as  this  author 
actually  had  at  his  command.  This  manifests  itself 
especially  in  the  variegated  sequel  of  the  dialogue  as 
also  in  the  subordination  of  all  particulars  to  the 
main  aspect  of  the  book.  The  principle  followed  in 
the  structure  of  the  dialogue  has  already  been  de- 
scribed in  the  preceding.  And  also  the  subordination 
of  all  details  to  the  main  aspect  was  established  in  our 
analysis  above.  Still  there  are  two  points  to  be  added 
which  are  characteristic  of  the  book  of  Job  as  a  literary 
product. 

First,  the  original  author  of  the  book  (including  the 
revelation  in  the  storm)  considered  his  task  done  with 
the  introduction  of  the  cosmological  proof.  He  did 
not  feel  the  need  of  restoring  Job  to  health  and 
prosperity.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  in  keeping  with  the 
main  issue  of  his  work  that  the  case  of  his  hero  should 
be  explained  by  no  mere  ethical  consideration,  such  as 
the  restoration  at  the  end  undoubtedly  suggests. 
This  case  should  rather  stand  as  an  example  of  a 
situation  which  can  be  explained,  or,  rather,  as  a  case 
which  can  be  comprehended,  only  in  the  light  of  the 
cosmologico-ethical  proof.     It  was  a  pure  theoretical 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  165 


drama  that  the  author  of  the  book  saw  and  conceived. 
And  even  though  we  are  unable  to  fix  the  exact  date 
of  the  book,  everything  points  to  the  assumption 
that  this  is  the  oldest  dramatic  narrative  in  Hebrew 
literature.  Accordingly,  the  dramatic  narrative  in 
Hebrew  literature  sprang  forth  from  and  grew  on  pure 
theoretical  soil.  Thus  the  reaction  against  the  his- 
torical literary  motif  which  is  dominating  in  all  older 
biblical  writings,  also  in  the  prophetical  including 
Ezekiel,  was  of  a  very  radical  nature.  The  book  of 
Job  with  the  short  story  of  the  misfortune  of  the  hero 
as  an  introduction,  was  a  drama  with  almost  no  action. 
Evidently,  however,  this  was  the  radical  step  of  one 
strong  individual  genius.  The  general  trend  of 
literature  in  that  period  tends  rather  to  a  blending  of 
the  old  preference  for  historical  actions  and  events 
with  the  new  theoretical  interest.  This  new  in- 
terest, most  likely  gradually  growing  (in  literary 
attempts  now  lost),  was  developed  by  the  author 
of  Job  to  the  highest  degree  it  was  ever  to  attain  in 
Hebrew  literature.  This  we  see  right  in  the  additions 
to  the  book  of  Job,  itself.  The  originally  theoretical 
drama  receives  a  back  ground  richer  in  action.  The 
beginnings  of  the  action  are  traced  to  their  origin  in 
heaven  where  Satan  appears  as  the  real  originator  of 
the  drama.  And  as  in  the  beginning  so  also  at  the 
end,  later  writers  felt  a  lack  of  adequate  action  which 
would  bring  the  whole  drama  to  an  harmonious  con- 
clusion. These  considerations,  as  much  as  the  desire 
to  give  support  to  the  attitude  of  Elihu  that  suffering 
may  be  a  trial  preparatory  to  and  productive  of 
greater   happiness,   seem   to   be   responsible   for   the 


166  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


' 'pleasing  end,"  the  story  of  the  restoration  of  Job 
after  the  patiently  endured  trial,  when  his  blessing  in 
prosperity  and  posterity  was  much  greater  than 
ever  before. 

This  tendency  toward  the  problem  drama  mani- 
fest itself  in  the  fact  that  of  four  dramatic  narratives 
of  biblical  literature  in  the  following  period  not  less 
than  three  are  problem  dramas,  viz.  Jonah,  Ruth 
and  Esther,  while  the  fourth,  the  Song  of  Songs, 
anyhow  treats  a  very  important  ethical,  even  though 
not  theological,  problem;  namely  the  conflict  between 
the  two  great  world  powers,  the  power  of  love  and  the 
power  of  the  King,  or  rather:  the  power  of  love  and 
the  power  of  all  those  other  passions  and  ambitions 
combined  which  are  bound  to  seduce  the  heart  of  the 
lover  to  faithlessness.  Of  these  four  writings  we  have 
selected  the  book  of  Jonah  for  special  discussion. 
As  regards  the  Song  of  Songs  it  will  be  sufficient  for 
our  purpose  here  to  point  out  that  even  this  book,  the 
only  one  in  biblical  literature  which  does  not  display 
any  thoelogical  interest,  and  which  has  the  sexual 
motive  as  its  central  motif,  treats  of  a  deep  ethical 
problem  and  gives  eloquent  testimony  of  how  intensely 
the  universal  human  interest  was  clutivated  in 
biblical  literary  spheres.  It  is  known  how  much  en- 
deavor it  took  Rabbi  'Akiba  to  retain  the  Song  of 
Songs  in  the  canon.  This  makes  it  appear  very 
likely  that  other  literary  products  of  the  literary 
genre  of  the  Song  of  Songs  were  actually  kept  out  of 
or  excluded  from  the  canon  causing  their  traceless 
perdition. 

This  touches  upon  the  second  point  which,  as  men- 
tioned above,  we  have  to  add  to  the  characterization 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  167 


of  the  book  of  Job.  This  point  will  develop  into 
the  main  aspect  for  the  books  of  Ruth  and  Esther 
to  be  discussed  here  incidentally. 

The  subordination  of  all  particular  features  to  the 
main  aspect  in  the  book  of  Job  signifies  not  only  a 
literary  contrivance  of  high  dignity  and  perfection, 
but  beyond  this  a  new  aspect  of  high  ethical  value. 
The  book  of  Job  is  the  only  one  in  biblical  literature 
and  most  likely  in  all  Semitic,  nay  in  the  world- 
literature  of  antiquity,  in  which  the  problem  of 
justice  is  treated  free  from  all  and  any  national 
aspect.  It  would  be  possible  to  venture  an  explana- 
tion of  this  circumstance  out  of  pure  literary  motives. 
And  we  have  to  admit  that  to  a  certain  extent  it  was 
with  an  eye  to  the  literary  harmoniousness  of  his 
work  that  the  author  avoided  to  infuse  national  motives 
into  the  evolving  dialogue:  The  author  achieved  his 
object  first  by  the  supple  interweaving  of  all  intrinsi- 
cally coherent  motives,  but,  secondly,  also  by  careful 
exclusion  of  all  motives  suggesting  themselves  through 
precedence  and  habit,  but  not  lending  themselves  to 
be  brought  into  an  intimate  organic  interdependence 
with  the  basic  thoughts  of  the  book.  And  yet,  we  are 
inclined  to  assume  that  the  decisive  motive  in  this 
case  was  not  of  a  pure  literary,  but  rather  of  an 
ethico-religious,  nature.  And  herewith  we  come  to 
discuss  the  book  of  Job  from  the  aspects  of  legislation 
and  universalism.  It  is  a  definite  attitude  in  these 
great  questions  of  culture  which  the  author  of  the  book 
wishes  to  emphasize  through  this  rather  negative  way 
of  expression.  All  the  previous  prophets  and  writers 
believed,  and  prayed  for,  that  the  attributes  of  mercy 
be  efficient  for  Israel,  as  a  nation,  to  a  higher  degree 


168  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

than  for  other  nations.  Only  as  to  individuals  there 
was  no  difference  between  Israelites,  proselytes  or 
even  heathen  (Ez.  XIV,  6,  14,  20).  Now  in  the  book 
of  Job  no  cognizance  is  taken  of  the  existence  of  differ- 
ent nationalities  and  for  this  very  reason  the  principle 
of  national  responsibility  is  replaced  by  that  of  family 
responsibility.  Man,  plain  and  simple,  is  spoken  of 
in  this  book:  In  a  discreet  literary  form,  yet  fully 
consciously  and  intentionally,  the  author  draws  before 
us  his  prophetic  ideal  of  one  suffering  humanity  with 
one  problem  of  suffering  and  one  solution  thereof: 
The  acting  figures  bear  names  outspokenly  non- 
Jewish  (Elihu  not  belonging  to  the  original  draft  of  the 
book).  As  his  hero  he  takes  the  son  of  a  land  against 
which  there  was  a  much  justified  grudge  in  the  hearts 
of  the  Jews,  the  son  of  a  nation  (Edom)  that,  for  her 
political  malignity,  was  a  target  of  hatred  to  the  Jews 
(Ob.  ch.  I;  Mai.  I,  3,4;  Ps.  CXXXVII,  7;  Echa  IV,  21, 
22).  The  laws  referred  to  in  the  book  do  betray,  in 
content  and  language,  their  Jewish  origin,  but  in 
themselves  they  are  of  a  pure  ethical  nature.  It 
certainly  would  be  wrong  to  say  the  author  was  an 
opponent  of  all  ritual  piety.  For  not  only  is  the 
guilt-offering  spoken  of  in  the  introduction  (I,  5:  a 
guilt-offering  out  of  doubt — an  element  of  develop- 
ment pointing  to  the  future;  cf.  below  to  the  Priestly 
Code),  and  this  in  a  passage  which  according  to  all 
evidence  must  be  ascribed  to  the  original  author, 
but,  also  in  the  dialogue  itself  Elpihaz  gives  Job  the 
advice  to  pay  off  his  vows  (XII,  27 — again  pointing  to 
the  future;  cf.  below  to  Jona),  which  phrase  is  idiomatic 
for  paying  off  a  vow  to  bring  a  thank-offering.     Never- 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  169 

theless,  it  remains  a  fact  that  the  law  largely  at  the 
bottom  of  the  concept  of  merit  and  guilt  in  the  book 
of  Job  is  not  only  international,  which  holds  true  also 
of  the  sacrifices,  but  also  purely  ethical.  And  they 
are  ethical  to  the  extent  of  raising  humane  postulates 
even  beyond  the  laws  of  Deuteronomy,  to  say  nothing 
of  Ezekiel's  list  of  merits  and  sins  (cf.  especially  Job 
chaps.  XXIX-XXXI;  also  the  list  of  sins  in  Deut. 
XXVII  and  the  Scroll  of  Curse  in  Zach.  V). 

Coming  writh  this  ideal  postulate  in  mind  to  exam- 
ine the  other  literature  of  that  period  we  soon  perceive 
that  while  the  author  of  the  book  of  Job  stands  by  no 
means  entirely  alone  in  his  high  ideal,  none  of  the 
prophets  and  wrriters  we  know  of  goes  as  far  as  he 
goes;  and  further  that  the  circumstances  prevailing 
in  that  age  hardly  favored  that  ideal,  even  in  its 
somewhat  reduced  shape  in  which  it  is  found  with  the 
other  writers. 

The  author  of  the  book  of  Ruth  for  instance,  has 
mapped  out  for  himself  the  task  of  fighting  that 
radical  particularism  w^hich  went  to  the  length  of 
excluding  from  marriage  with  a  Jew  even  such  non- 
Jewish  women  as  would  sincerely  join  the  Jewish 
religion  and  the  Jewish  nation  (cf.  Mai.  II,  llf;  Esra 
chaps.  IXandX;Neh.  IX,  2;X,  31;  XIII,  1,  23-30). 
The  author  defends  his  attitude  that  such  women  may 
well  be  received  into  the  Jewish  fold,  by  telling  the 
story  of  Ruth  wrhich  testifies  to  the  claim  in  vogue 
that  the  great  revered  dynasty  of  David  descended 
from  a  Moabitic  woman.  This  is  the  central  motif 
around  which  the  author  weaves  other  motifs  in  a  most 
skillful    manner:     the    motif   of   divine   justice    (the 


170  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Job  problem)  and  that  of  sexual  love  in  connection  with 
the  problem  of  Love  and  Law.     With  this  he  links  the 
further    intention    of    drawing    an    idyllic    scene    of 
Palestinian  still-life  in  the  time  of   the  Judges.     All 
of  which  he  achieves  in  a  short  but  masterly  sketch : 
Famine  is  reigning  in  the  land,  a  national  disaster 
by  which  of  course  also  the  individual  is  hard  hit. 
Elimelech,  accompanied  by  his  wife  Naomi  and  his 
two  sons,  emigrates  from  Palestine  to  Moab.     Elime- 
lech dies,  evidently  in  punishment  for  his  indifference 
to  the  national  disaster  manifested  in  his  leaving  the 
land  and  his  attempt  to  escape  for  himself  and  his 
family  the  workings  of  national  responsibility.     He 
then  gets  his  share  by  the  workings  of  the  principle 
of  individual  retribution,  he  dies  (cf.  the  alternative 
in  2  Sam.  XXIV,  13  and  2  Chr.  XXI,  12;  the  death 
of  Elimelech  was  a  case  of  individual  Debher;  cf.  in 
the  following  to  the  Priestly  Code:  Khareth-individual 
Magguepha).     Thereupon  the  two  sons  of  Elimelech 
marry      non-Jewish     wives.       For     the     emigration 
Elimelech  alone  was  responsible,  but  for  the  mixed 
marriage  with  foreign  women  who  failed  to  embrace 
Judaism,  the  sons  themselves  were  responsible.    They 
were  so  to  say  outside  of  the  sphere  of  the  workings  of 
the  principle  of  national  retribution,  but  then  also 
outside     of     its     protective     influence.     Hence     the 
individual  Debher  by  which  they  are  overtaken,  both 
die.     Naomi,  the  innocent,  remains  alone  in  her  grief 
and  affliction,  like  Job  (Ruth  I,  1-5).     But  this  hard 
tried  heroine  never  falters  in  her  faith  in  the  divine 
attributes    of    mercy.      She    resolves    to    return    to 
Palestine,     and     in     bidding     her     daughters-in-law 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  171 

good-bye  she  commits  them  to  the  mercy  of  JHVH 
(1,  8).  The  daughters-in-law  refuse  to  leave  her,  but 
only  Ruth  is  persistent  enough  to  join  religion  and 
nationality  of  Judaism:  "Thy  people  is  my  people, 
and  thy  God  is  my  God"  (I,  16).  Upon  her  arrival  in 
Bethlehem  Naomi  tells  the  townspeople  of  her  fate, 
her  name  should  now  be  rather  Marah  (the  bitter, 
afflicted)  than  Naomi  (the  sweet,  happy).  And  also 
the  name  of  God  should  in  this  connection  be  lather 
Shadday,  the  Almighty,  the  dispenser  of  rigid  justice, 
than  JHVH,  the  Merciful  (I,  20,  21;  cf.  Ezekiel,  Job, 
and  the  Priestly  Code).  Ruth  becomes  then  a  fre- 
quent visitor  in  the  fields  of  Boaz,  the  very  man  upon 
whom  she  has  certain  legal  levirate  claims  (II,  1-20). 
Upon  the  advice  of  this  her  benefactor  she  follows  the 
maid  harvesters  (comp.  II,  8,  9,  15  with  II,  21-23). 
Clearly  the  chasteness  of  the  Moabitic  woman  is  to 
be  emphasized.  One  recalls  at  once  the  story  which 
presents  the  "daughters  of  Moab"  in  quite  a  different 
light  (Gen.  XIX,  30-38) .  That  famous  story  purports 
to  refute  the  claim  of  the  peoples  of  Ammon  and  Moab 
upon  divine  origin  and  to  brand  them  rather  as  the 
offspring  of  incest  (cf.  Gen.  VI,  1-4  and  my  article 
"The  Monotheistic  Redaction  etc.  in  "Hatoren," 
New  York,  I,  p.  146-47).  And,  to  give  color  to  his 
view  that  also  a  Moabitic  woman  can  be  chaste,  the 
author  construes  a  situation  similar  in  all  details  to  that 
in  the  famous  story,  differing  only  in  the  result,  in  that 
in  this  case  the  Moabitic  woman  deports  herself  most 
chastely,  although  according  to  her  view  of  the 
situation  she  was  the  legal  wife  of  Boaz.  And  here 
the  author  is  not  remiss  in  having  the  Judean  patriarch 


172  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

give  testimony  to  the  Moabitic  heroine  that  he  noted 
her  chasteness  long  ago,  suggesting  that  she  may  have 
given  up  the  chance  to  marry  some  rich  man  out  of 
consideration  to  the  requirements  of  Judean  law 
(III,  1-10).  The  dramatic  development  reaches  its 
climax  in  the  main  motif:  From  the  alliance  of  this 
Jewish  patriarch  with  this  Moabitic  woman  is  to  come 
the  Jewish  dynasty.  Anything  tending  to  mar 
this  alliance  tends  to  mar  the  birth  of  that  dynasty. 
And  this  alliance  is  about  to  be  marred,  there  being  a 
legal  obstacle  in  its  way:  According  to  Jewish  law 
an  other  man  comes  in  as  first  consideration  for  the 
levirate-marriage  with  Ruth.  Boaz  is  now  the  hero 
in  the  side-motif  of  the  narrative.  From  this  struggle 
he  emerges  victorious.  Law  triumphs  over  Love 
(III,  11-18).  Fortunately  the  first  to  the  title  resigns 
from  the  levirate  with  all  the  rights  and  duties  involved 
therein.  The  tension  is  relieved,  the  situation  saved, 
the  drama  reaches  a  pleasing  solution  in  all  its  motifs. 
In  the  main  issue:  The  Jewish  dynasty  is  to  spring 
forth  from  the  intermarriage  of  the  Judean  patriarch 
with  the  Moabitic  woman.  This  is  the  victory  of 
universalism.  In  the  side-issues  it  is  rather  particular- 
ism that  is  victorious.  The  Moabitic  woman  joins 
Jewish  religion  and  nationality.  Within  the  province 
of  the  sexual  motif  chasteness  is  the  indispensable  con- 
dition. In  the  collision  between  Love  and  Law,  the 
latter  is  victorious.  In  the  end  also  love  is  victorious, 
but  only  that  chaste  love  that  respects  law  and  sub- 
mits to  its  biddings.  It  is  the  love  that  respects  law 
and  justice,  the  rights  of  others,  that  is  victorious  in 
the   end.     This   touches   upon   the   most   important 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  173 

side-issue  of  the  narrative,  on  the  question  of  justice. 
The  righteous  is  victorious  in  the  end,  and  also  in  our 
book  this  is  the  case :  Naomi,  the  innocently  suffering 
heroine  in  the  background,  is  vindicated,  she  is  happy 
like  Job  after  the  restoration  (IV,  1-11,  13-17;  comp. 
>*U  in  verse  14  with  Job  XIX,  25,  and  the  "seven 
sons"  in  verse  15  with  Job  XLII,  13).  A  later  age 
tried  to  delve  even  more  deeply  into  the  main  historic 
motif  by  adding  the  interesting  detail  that  also  Boaz, 
the  grandfather  of  King  David,  on  his  own  part,  is  the 
offspring  of  a  highly  objectionable  marriage,  namely 
that  of  Juda-Thamar  (Ruth  IV,  12,  18-22  as  compared 
with  Gen.  chap.  XXXVIII).  And  also  the  motif  of 
justice  appears  intensely  deepened  by  this  addition. 
The  workings  of  God  are  manifest  in  history,  and 
what  appears  to  man  to  be  a  sin  provoking  divine 
vengeance  (the  case  of  Judah-Thamar),  or  the  suffering 
of  the  just  (the  case  of  Namoi — Ruth),  is  oftentimes 
but  the  fulfillment  of  the  great  plan  of  the  God  of 
History  who  in  the  shaping  of  the  destinies  of  his 
chosen  people  assigned  an  important  part  also  to  the 
nations. 

Similar  to  the  book  of  Ruth  in  its  motifs  is  the  book 
of  Esther  (belonging  to  the  following  period),  other- 
wise so  different  in  character.  In  the  center  of  the 
interest  is  here  the  particularism  of  the  Jews  which, 
attacked  by  a  representative  of  the  nations,  emerges 
victorious  from  the  struggle.  Next  in  importance  is 
the  motif  of  justice.  No  divine  name  is  used  in  this 
book;  the  just  guidance  of  history  through  divine 
providence  reveals  itself  in  the  course  of  events.  The 
Jews  are  spared  and  the  right  upon  Jewish  particular- 


174  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

ism  is  granted,  owing  to  the  mixed  marriage  of  King 
Ahaswer  and  a  Jewess  coming  from  the  first  dynasty 
of  the  Kingdom  of  Israel.     The  motif  of  love  in  the 
book  of  Esther  is  in  all  details  a  pendant  to  that  of  the 
book  of  Ruth.     In  the  latter  a  Jewish  man  and  a  non- 
Jewish   woman   lay   the   foundations  of   the   Judean 
dynasty  of  the  future,  in  the  former  a  non-Jewish  man 
and  a  Jewish  woman  of  the  Israelitish  dynasty  of  the 
past  help  to  sustain  Jewish  particularism.     And  also 
in  other  ways  this  author  makes  non-Jews  work  in 
favor  of  Jewish  particularism  (Hathach,  Harbonah). 
Common  to  both  is  the  idea:     Jewish  particularism  is 
the  natural  supposition,  but  this  should  not  obstruct 
the  farther  reaching  outlook  into  unity  of  mankind, 
moreover,  even  intermarriage  is  not  to  be  rejected 
entirely,  being,  as  it  may,  sometimes  a  part  of  the 
great  workings  of  God  destined  to  bring  about  the 
greatest  changes  in  history.     In  the  book  of  Ruth  the 
aim  is  that  of  bringing  about  the  dynasty  of  David, 
hence  the  recommendation  of  intermarriage  under  the 
condition   of   conversion   of   the   non-Jewish   woman 
(the  conversion  of  a  man  to  the  religion  of  the  woman 
was  not  thought  of  in  those  days).     In  the  book  of 
Esther,  on  the  other  hand,  the  aim  is  that  of  bringing 
about  a  royal  act  of  grace  through  the  influence  of  a 
Jewish  woman,   hence  the  toleration   only  of  inter- 
marriage,   the    Jewess    retaining    her    relegion    and 
nationality.     The  books  of  Ruth  and  Esther  as  com- 
pared with  each  other,  represent  two  currents  which 
have  their  sources  in  different  conditions  of  the  times, 
and  which  address  themselves  to  different  classes  of 
people.     The  book  of  Ruth,  written  at  a  time  when 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  175 

the  hope  for  full  national  restoration  with  the  help 
of  a  non-Jewish  Power  was  about  to  be  fulfilled,  aims 
at  a  full  national  life  in  Palestine  with  the  universalistic 
idea  of  the  unity  of  mankind  in  the  background.  In 
the  book  of  Esther,  on  the  other  hand,  written  at  a 
time  when  alongside  of  the  national  center  there  was 
already  what  may  be  called  a  permanent  diaspora,  an 
ideal  is  being  pursued  very  much  similar  to  that  of  the 
so-called  Assimilationists  of  our  own  time:  The  Jew 
is  not  distinguishable  from  his  environment  as  far  as 
external  appearances  go,  he  is  not  found  out  if  he  does 
not  display  color  himself  (Esth.  II,  10,  20;  III,  4,  5, 
V,  8;  VII,  3).  Evidently,  the  Jews  were  different 
from  their  surroundings  neither  in  language  nor  in 
dress  (cf.Zeph.  I,  9).  We  move  here  in  a  cosmopolitan 
atmosphere.  The  names  of  the  leading  Jewish  figures, 
Modrechai  and  Esther,  are  non-Jewish,  nay  emphati- 
cally pagan,  and  even  reminiscent  of  a  pagan  religious 
motif:  Marduk  and  Ishtar,  the  very  motif  with  which 
Judaism  in  its  struggle  for  life  had  to  cope  so  much 
from  its  very  beginnings  to  the  time  of  Jeremiah. 
The  Jews  put  in  an  effort  to  be  good  and  loyal  citizens, 
at  times  manifesting  also  personal  loyalty  to  the  king 
without  calling  attention  to  their  merit  for  due  recog- 
nition (II,  21-23),  but  at  the  same  time  they  are 
always  ready  to  accept  due  recognition  and  rank- 
elevation,  and  to  devote  the  best  that  is  in  them  to  the 
service  of  king  and  country  (VI,  1-11;  VIII,  15). 
Mordechai  climbs  high  up,  to  the  position  of  Vice-Roy 
of  the  Perso-Median  World- Empire.  The  only  thing 
insisted  upon  is  religious  separatism.  In  the  first 
half  of  Haman's  accusation  lies  the  program  of  the 


176  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

author:     "There  is  a  people  scattered  and  dispersed 
among  the  peoples  in  all  the  states  of  the  Kingdom, 
and  whose  laws  are  different  from  (those  of)  any  other 
people"  (111,8).     Only  the  addition :  "and  the  laws  of 
the  king  they  obey  not"  is  being  disputed.     On  the 
contrary,  it  is  asserted,  the  differences  concern  religion 
only.     Against  any  attack  upon  this  religious  liberty, 
granted  them  by  king  and  constitution,  they  are  ready 
to  defend  themselves,  if  need  be,  with  arms  in  their 
hands.     Not  all  the  fellow -citizens,  so  the  author  w^ants 
to  have  it  understood,  have  a  desire  to  destroy  the 
Jews,  it  being  rather  only  a  small  minority  of  "Jew- 
haters"   (IX,   1,  5),  led  by  Haman,  the  offspring  of 
the  old  arch-enemy  of  Israel,  of  the  tribe  of  Agag  whose 
emnity  toward  Israel  goes  back  to  the  days  of  Moses 
and    Samuel    (Amalek-Agag).     By    this    the    author 
desires  to  arrest  our  attention  on  the  account  of  sin 
going  through  history.     Saul  and  Agag  faced  each 
other  in  emnity  in  the  time  of  Samuel,  and  now^,  after 
many  centuries,  their  direct  descendants  are  facing 
each  other  with  the  same  emnity.     And  this  is  the 
only  historic  reminiscence  in  this  book;  there  being 
otherwise  no  reference  to  existing  or  expected  national 
conditions  in  Palestine:  Jewish  religion,  cultivation  of 
reminiscences  of  the  glorious  past,  and  the  eternal 
struggle  with  the  small  minority  of  Jew-haters,  but 
no  national  hopes  of  their  own — this  is  the  program 
of  the  author,  the  program  of  the  permanent  diaspora. 
Also   other  prophets  and   writers  of   this  penod 
meditate  on  the  question  of  the  relationship  between 
the  Jews  and  the  nations.     Their  aspirations  do  not 
go  as  high  as  those  of  the  author  of  the  book  of  Job 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  177 

who  in  questions  of  justice  refuses  entirely  to  take 
cognizance  of  any  difference  between  nation  and  nation, 
The  attitude  of  those  writers  is  generally  that  of  the 
books  of  Ruth  and  Esther:  The  Jewish  nation  and 
her  religion  remain  in  their  separation,  and  also  as 
regards  justice  the  Jews  are  God's  chosen  people,  being 
governed  by  the  attributes  of  mercy  to  a  greater 
extent  than  are  the  other  nations.  But  with  some  of 
the  prophets  of  this  period  there  developed  a  peculiar 
notion  of  mercy  and  selection :  The  beginnings  of  this 
development  we  find  with  Ezekiel  who  assigns  to  the 
prophet  the  task  of  saving  the  sinful  community 
(cf.  above).  With  Ezekiel  the  meaning  of  it  is  rather 
that  the  prophet  would  bring  on  the  betterment  of  the 
community  through  his  warnings,  and  also  that  he 
would  effect  a  delay  of  judgment  through  his  prayer 
appealing  to  the  attribute  of  long-suffering.  Of  the 
idea  that  the  nghteous  could  save  the  guilty  through 
his  own  righteousness,  there  is  but  a  slight  hint  in 
Ezekiel,  although  this  thought  is  found  in  an  older 
source,  in  the  prayer  of  Abraham  for  the  doomed 
cities;  where,  however,  the  thought  is  given  the 
restricting  bent  that  the  general  disaster  may  be 
averted  in  order  that  the  innocent  should  not  be 
destroyed  together  with  the  guilty,  leaving  the 
possibility  of  the  punishment  to  be  meted  out  to  each 
sinner  individually  (Gen.  XVIII,  23-32;  notably 
verses  23,  31,  32;  this  entire  passage,  however,  may 
not  be  any  older  than  the  book  of  Job).  This  thought 
entered  a  combination  with  the  idea  of  the  suffering 
of  the  just  as  a  trial  with  the  purpose  of  bringing  about 
the  sufferer's  own  purification  and  his  own  increased 


178  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

happiness,  as  set  forth,  especially  by  Elihu,  in  the  book 
of  Job.  This  produced  the  idea  that  an  individual 
is  able  to  save  others,  even  a  whole  people,  through 
his  righteousness,  as  also,  and  most  especially  so, 
through  his  suffering.  Another  step  in  this  direction 
led  up  to  the  bold  idea  that  one  individual  nation 
expiates  through  her  righteousness  and  her  suffering 
the  sins  of  the  entire  world  community  of  nations. 
This  is  a  new  explanation  of  the  suffering  of  the 
righteous,  individual  or  nation,  involving  also  a  new 
conception  of  the  selection  of  Israel.  The  righteous 
suffers  not  only  as  part  of  the  whole,  by  virtue  of  the 
principle  of  national  retribution,  but  also  for  the  whole 
community.  Israel  suffers  rot  only  as  part  of  human- 
ity, by  virtue  ot  the  general  principle  of  retribution, 
but  also  for  humanity.  Notably  this  thought  is 
developed  by  that  great  prophet  of  the  exile  to  whom 
the  middle  chapters  of  Deutero-Isaiah  are  ascribed 
(XLIX-LIX).  The  christological  idea  of  the  "Ser- 
vant of  JHVH",  the  "Ebed  JHVH,"  suffering  as 
"vicarious  expiator,"  developed  and  solidified  on  the 
soil  of  the  Job-problem  in  its  combination  with  the 
problem  "Israel  and  the  nations"  (Is.  XL,  2;  XLII, 
1-4,  19-22;  XLIV,  21;  XLVIII,  20;  XLIX,  1-7;  LII, 
13-LIII,  12;  LIV,  17).  This  led  to  a  reawakening  of 
the  idea  of  messianic  universalism.  Israel,  the 
prophet  of  JHVH,  will  lead  all  peoples  to  JHVH. 
However,  this  universalism  is  marked  by  an  admix- 
ture of  a  national-religious  element.  The  later 
prophets  of  this  period  take  the  same  attitude  toward 
religious  ritual  in  general,  and  particularly  toward 
bloody  sacrifices,  as  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  in  this,  and 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  179 

their  predecessors  in  the  preceding  period.  They 
reject  the  sacrifices,  even  when  they  are  intended  for 
JHVH,  as  long  as  they  are  not  offered  with  pure 
hands  (ethical  purity)  and  a  pure  heart  (purity  of 
religious  beliefs).  But  they  considered  the  sacrifices, 
and  this  again  in  agreement  with  the  older 
prophets,  as  very  important  inasmuch  as  they  serve 
as  an  activation  of  one's  religious  beliefs,  and  they 
point  to  the  regular  flow  of  religious  national  life  as  to  a 
great  divine  blessing.  These  latter  prophets,  however, 
go  beyond  their  predecessors,  including  Jeremiah  and 
Ezekiel,  in  that  they  bring  the  national  religious  idea, 
as  expressed  in  the  sacrificial  and  general  religious 
ritual,  in  close  connection  with  the  universalistic  idea. 
The  nations,  led  to  JHVH  by  Israel,  will  not  only 
confess  JHVH  (cf.  Jeremiah),  but  they  will  also  have 
to  perform  certain  rituals.  Individuals  embracing 
Judaism  are  forbidden  to  enter  the  sanctuary  unless 
they  observe  the  laws  of  circumcision,  Sabbath  and 
Levitical  purity  (cf.  Ezekiel).  Nations  who  wish 
to  confess  JHVH  will  have  to  bring  Him  their  sacri- 
fices. Some  even  demand  taht  the  proselytic  nations 
pilgrim  to  Jerusalem  to  celebrate  there  the  Sabbath, 
the  New  Moon,  and  the  Succoth  Festival  (Hab.  II,  14; 
Is.  XIV,  1 ;  XXIV,  13-15 ;  XXV,  3f ;  XLII,  4,  6,  10,  11 ; 
XLIII,  23;  XLIV,  28-XLV,  8;  in  connection  with  the 
idea  of  creation,  as  often;  XLV,  14-25:  the  same 
chap.  XLIX:  the  same;  LI,  4-11:  the  same;  LI  I,  1 
circumcision  and  Levitical  purity;  LV,  4,  5;  LVI,  1-8 
the  proselytes:  Sabbath,  circumcision  and  sacrifices 
LVIII,  1-14:  against  ritual  without  justice,  but  even 
with  justice   the  Sabbath  remains  an   indispensable 


180  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

condition;  LX,  1-7:  universalism,  with  the  under- 
standing, however,  that  the  nations  will  sacrifice  in 
Jerusalem;  LXI,  5-9:  universalism,  and:  no  sacrifice 
at  the  expense  of  justice;  LXI  I,  2;  LXV,  11:  accusa- 
tion of  neglect  of  the  Temple;  LXVI,  1-4:  against 
sacrifices  where  injustice  prevails,  in  connection  with 
the  idea  of  creation;  LXVI,  12-24:  against  violation  of 
the  dietary  laws;  universalism,  but  the  nations  are 
expected  to  observe  Sabbath  and  New  Moon;  Zech. 
VI,  15;  VIII,  20f:  conversion  to  Judaism  in  multitudes; 
XIV,  9:  universalism;  verses  16-21:  universalism,  but 
the  nations  are  expected  to  celebrate  the  Succoth; 
Mai.  1,  6-14:  the  Jews  are  admonished  to  see  to  it  that 
the  sacrifices  they  bring,  be  without  blemish,  as  indeed 
all  the  nations  everywhere  bring  only  such  to  the  name 
of  JHVH;  II,  12-15:  no  sacrifice  at  the  expense  of 
justice;  cf.  Zech.  VIII,  9-17;  III,  1-12:  justice  is  the 
demand,  but  also  a  purified  sort  of  sacrifice  and  other 
ritual  exercises  as  a  reward  for  which,  so  the  promise 
goes,  God  will  accept  the  sacrifice  graciously,  and  all 
the  nations  of  the  earth  will  recognize  Israel  and  his 
God;  as  to  the  strengthening  of  the  ritual  postulates  in 
this  period  cf.  also  Hag.  II,  11-14:  a  halachic  inter- 
pretation of  one  of  the  laws  of  Levitical  purity). 

National  seclusion  on  the  one  hand  and  a  universal 
outlook  on  the  other — this  is  the  characteristical  mark 
of  the  latter  half  of  this  period.  National  seclusion 
was  the  resultant  of  political  conditions.  Amid  the 
then  prevailing  conditions  there  was  no  hope  for 
monotheistic  conquests  among  the  nations.  The 
universalistic  outlook  again  was  consequent  to  the 
cosmological  interest  which  at  that  time  was  intense 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  181 

in  both  schools  as  interpreted  by  Jeremiah  and 
Ezekiel  respectively.  The  school  of  Ezekiel  was 
interested  in  the  primitive  history  on  account  of  the 
doctrine  of  angels  with  which  it  is  so  deeply  interwoven. 
The  school  of  Jeremiah  on  its  part  was  interested  in 
the  history  of  the  beginnings  on  account  of  their  idea 
that  the  entire  development  of  creation  and  history 
was  directed  toward  the  selection  of  Israel.  This  may 
account  for  the  relatively  numerous  allusions  to 
primitive  history  found  in  the  few  prophecies  con- 
cerned (Ob.  I,  10,  18;  Is.  XLI,  8,  9;  XLIII,  1,  2,  7; 
XLIV,  1-5,  21;  XLV,  3,  4;  XLVI,  9f.;  XLIX,  6:  note 
the  frequent  use  in  these  chapters  of  the  names: 
Jacob-Yisroel;  LI,  1,  2,  9,  10:  elements  of  Babylonian 
cosmogony;  LII,  4  (cf.  Gen.  XLVII,  4;  Deut.  XXVI, 
5);  LIV,  9;  LXIII,  7f.,  especially  verse  16:  Abraham 
and  Yisroel  (as  Deities?)  renounced  ;Zech.  X,  11 ;  Mai. 
1,  2;  II,  8,  10).  This  interest  in  the  primitive  history 
and  the  common  origin  of  humanity  (cf.  Mai.  II,  10) 
induced  prophets  and  writers  to  conceive  the  relation- 
ship between  Israel  and  the  nations  in  a  rather  univer- 
salisticvein. 

All  of  these  questions,  in  addition  to  the  questions 
of  creation  and  sacrificial  cult  which  are  not  treated 
of  in  the  books  of  Ruth  and  Esther,  are  discussed  in 
the   small,    yet   brilliantly    written   book   of   Jonah. 

c.    The  Book  of  Jonah: 

This  pearl  of  biblical  narratives  is  on  the  whole 
an  apology  in  the  defense  of  the  attributes  of  mercy 
especially  of  the  much  attacked  attribute  of  long- 
suffering.     The   author   is   an   adherent   of    the   old 


182  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

school  to  which  the  Formula  of  Thirteen  was  the 
essential  definition  of  God,  although  he  evidently  con- 
fesses the  monotheistic  theory  of  creation  (cf.  below). 
He  builds  his  narrative  in  the  evolutionary  motif.  He 
himself  uses  right  from  the  start  the  divine  name  of 
JHVH,  but  in  relation  to  non-Jews  the  name  of  God  is 
Elohim  (I,  6,  III,  3,  8-10),  except  for  the  passage 
describing  the  catastrophe  when  the  people  of  the  ship 
pray  to  the  God  of  Jonah,  to  JHVH.  Jonah  is  meant 
to  be  a  representative  of  that  group  which  opposes 
the  attribute  of  long-suffering  as  well  as  the  whole 
principle  of  non-individual  retribution,  and  also  the 
idea  of  universalism.  According  to  their  view  it 
takes  the  whole  apparatus  of  sanctuary  and  sacrifice 
in  Jerusalem  to  bring  down  divine  mercy.  The 
author  of  this  book  rights  this  view  even  more  decid- 
edly than  the  authors  of  the  books  of  Job,  Ruth  and 
Esther.  He  achieves  his  aim  by  reducing  the  prophet 
Jonah,  the  representative  of  his  group,  ad  absurdurn: 
The  non-Jewish  city  of  Niniveh,  declared  ripe  for 
judgment  already  by  former  prophets  (Zeph.  Ill, 
13-15;  Nah.  chaps.  II  and  III),  has  brought  her 
measure  of  sin  to  overflow,  and  the  prophet  receives 
the  command  to  warn  her.  But  he  tries  to  deny 
himself  to  the  high  calling  of  the  prophet  which  con- 
sists in  warning,  instructing  and  bringing  about 
betterment  (cf.  Ezekiel),  persuaded,  as  he  evidently 
is,  that  the  only  task  of  the  prophet  was  the  announce- 
ment of  the  immediately  pending  inadvertible  judg- 
ment. Why  not  destroy  the  sinful  city,  which  is 
non-Jewish  at  that,  instantly?  Why  this  long- 
suffering?     Jonah   goes  on  board  a   ship  bound  for 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  183 

Tharshish  to  escape  God.  How  absurd!  As  if 
JHVH  was  only  the  God  of  Palestine,  and  not  "the  God 
of  Heaven,"  "who  created  the  sea  and  the  dry  land 
as  well,"  as  the  prophet  himself  afterwards  formulated 
his  confession  of  faith  (I,  9).  That  is  just  it,  the 
attitude  of  this  prophet  in  the  question  of  mercy  is  in 
contradiction  with  his  confession  of  faith.  Now  the 
prophet  is  soon  to  be  led  to  a  very  efficient  realization 
of  God's  universality  which  he  almost  denied  through 
his  action.  God  throws  a  storm  over  the  sea,  the 
boat  is  in  peril.  All  pray  to  their  gods,  the  prophet 
alone  trying  to  oversleep  his  guilty  conscience  until 
the  "others,"  the  non-Jews,  awakened  him  to  the 
grim  realities  around  him.  It  is  just  this  the  author 
wants  to  say:  The  overemphasis  of  the  principle  of 
individual  retribution  leads  to  fatalistic  cruelty: 
The  prophet  was  caught  in  the  delusion  that  each 
individual  bears  his  own  guilt.  Now  the  non-Jewish 
fellow-passengers  correct  his  view.  They  lay  down  the 
principle  representing  the  view  of  the  author,  that  in 
cases  where  the  lot  of  the  individual  is  bound  up  with 
that  of  the  whole,  it  is  the  communal  principle  ot 
retribution  which  governs,  so  that  all  may  suffer  for 
the  sins  of  one  of  their  number.  The  only  thing  left 
is  to  find  out  by  lot  who  is  the  guilty  one.  The  lot 
points  to  the  prophet  (1,7;  the  author  thus  admits  the 
lot  as  a  legitimate  mantical  means  which  may  at 
times  be  successful  even  though  cast  by  non-Jews; 
but  the  passage  about  the  lot  may  be  a  later  inter- 
polation;  cf.  Tholdoth  I.  p.  94-106).  Jonah  now 
declares  his  proud  national  religious  confession  of 
faith:     "A  Hebrew  am  I,  and  the  God  of  Heaven  do  I 


184  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

worship  who  created  the  sea  and  also  the  dry  land!" 
(I,  9).  He  also  confesses  his  guilt,  but  recognizes 
neither  the  principle  of  general  retribution  nor  that  of 
long-suffering,  refusing  the  suggestion  to  pray  for 
mercy,  and  rather  insisting  that  his  lot  be  isolated 
from  that  of  the  others.  He  drives  his  extreme  theory 
to  the  limit  of  self-destruction  advancing  the  sugges- 
tion that  he  be  thrown  over  board.  This  done,  the 
sea  subsides.  Then  the  non-Jewish  inmates  of  the 
ship  sacrifice  thanks-offerings  (I,  10-16;  cf.  II,  10); 
by  which  the  author  evidently  takes  a  stand  against 
the  sacrifices  as  an  instrument  of  mercy,  as  also 
against  the  view  that  the  thanks-offerings  of  non-Jews 
were  not  acceptable  to  God  as  much  as  those  of  Jews. 
Instruments  of  mercy  there  are  indeed,  but  such  are 
relinquishment  of  the  evil  way,  consciousness  of  guilt 
and  moral  improvement,  and  these  exclusively 
(III,  8).  This  can  be  done  without  a  sanctuary  and 
without  being  a  member  of  the  Jewish  race.  Now  the 
prophet  surely  deserved  it  to  be  treated  in  accordance 
with  his  own  theory,  but  the  narrator's  mind  is  set 
upon  beating  this  theory  with  the  undeserved  delivery 
of  the  prophet.  God  is  long-suffering,  He  sends  the 
drowning  prophet  a  large  fish  (or:  a  little  ark). 
Jonah  is  saved  (from  the  more  than  deserved  individ- 
ual flood),  and,  getting  a  new  chance  to  abandon  his 
evil  way  and  to  carry  out  the  mission  assigned  to  him, 
he  experiences  on  his  own  body  and  on  his  own  soul 
the  great  benefit  of  the  attribute  of  long-suffering 
(II,  l-III,  2).  The  dull  Ninivites,  by  no  means  a 
chosen  people,  find,  unaided  by  either  sanctuary  or 
sacrifices  according  to  the  Jewish  ritual,  the  right  way 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  185 

how  to  secure  the  efficiency  of  the  attributes  of 
mercy  (III,  3-10;  comp.  verses  9  and  10  with  Ex. 
XXXII,  14  and  parallels).  It  is  the  prophet  who 
remains  obdurate:  "Did  I  not  know  it  well,"  he 
reproachfully  addresses  God,  "That  Thou  art  a  God 
gracious  and  merciful,  long-suffering,  full  of  kindness 
and  reconsidering  the  decree  of  judgment!"  The 
Formula  of  Thirteen  which  he  thus  quotes,  evokes 
his  dislike,  but,  unwilling  to  relinquish  this  theory  in 
spite  of  all  the  experiences  he  had  gone  through,  life 
no  more  holds  any  charm  for  him  (IV,  1-4).  But 
God  is  extremely  long-suffering,  and  He  brings  it 
tangibly  before  the  eyes  of  the  prophet  how  indis- 
pensable the  attribute  of  long-suffering  is,  and  that 
the  entire  feeling  nature  is  in  need  of  it  (IV,  5-11; 
cf.  Job  at  the  end).  This  latter  point  deserves  our 
special  attention.  Already  in  the  description  of  the 
repentance  carried  out  by  the  Ninivites  the  author 
emphasizes  the  principle  of  universal  retribution, 
first  in  that  he  marks  the  act  of  repentance  as  an 
important  affair  of  state  carried  out  by  the  king  and 
his  leading  ministeis,  and  secondly  by  extending  the 
workings  of  that  principle  from  the  community  of 
man  upon  the  community  of  all  animate  beings. 

These  were  the  main  currents  of  thought  and  the 
main  issues  which  absorbed  the  interest  of  prophets 
and  writers  in  the  time  immediately  preceding  the 
Esra-Covenant.  So  far  we  had  to  deal  with  the  free 
production  of  literary  personalities,  i.  e.  with  such 
that  advanced  no  claim  to  official  authority.  This 
seems  to  account  for  the  fact  that  we  found  among 
them    no   extreme   representatives   of    the   opposing 


186  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

two  schools.  This  changes  when  we  come  to  those 
writings  which  were  launched  a\  ith  the  claim  to  assume 
authority  as  Books  of  the  Covenant,  the  Priestly 
Code  and  the  Book  of  Holiness.  These  books,  too, 
combine,  each  one  of  them  in  its  own  manner,  Jere- 
mian  and  Ezekielian  elements  into  one  system,  but 
this  only  in  subordinate  questions  and  external 
features.  Where,  however,  there  is  a  question  of 
principles,  these  two  books  face  each  other  in  un- 
mitigated opposition. 

d.    Priestly  Code. 

The  Priestly  Code  raises  the  monotheistic  doctrine 
of  creation  in  connection  with  the  idea  of  Israel's 
selection  into  a  well  rounded  system:  Creation, 
History,  Sanctuary  and  Law  form  parallel  individual 
systems  the  constituent  parts  of  which  cover  and 
mutually  condition  each  other.  The.  idea  of  creation 
carries  everything,  it  accounts  for  the  course  of 
history  and  for  the  postulates  of  the  law.  The  first 
chapter  of  the  book  of  Genesis,  the  account  of  creation, 
is  the  foundation  upon  which  everything  is  immovably 
established.  On  the  occasion  of  some  particular  laws 
such  as  Sabbath  and  the  inalienability  of  inherited 
ground,  this  stands  out  even  more  boldly  through 
the  emphatic  contrast  with  the  Book  of  Holiness  where 
those  laws  are  based  rather  on  the  attribute  of  holiness 
or  on  the  historic  argument  of  the  exodus  from  Egypt, 
respectively  (Tholdoth  I,  p.  117-118).  The  Priestly 
Code  is  a  Book  of  Laws,  of  the  laws  of  history  and  of 
human  conduct.  There  are  no  theological  discussions 
as  we  have  them  in  Deuteronomy  and  in  the  Book  of 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  187 

Holiness.  The  theory  is  kept  rather  in  the  back- 
ground, in  the  book  itself  there  are  presented  results 
and  postulates  only.  Divine  Justice  and  Might 
manifest  themselves  in  the  course  of  history  and  give 
the  law  its  binding  power,  inasmuch  as  they  are  the 
same  attributes  which  express  God's  creative  power. 
God  is  the  source  of  wisdom,  the  wisdom  of  creation, 
revealing  itself  to  man  in  the  weak  reflection  of  it  with 
which  he  himself  was  endowed.  This  is  most  evident 
in  this  document's  description  of  the  erection  of  the 
Tabernacle  and  of  prophecy  (Ex.  XXXI,  3;  XXXV, 
31f ;  XXXVI,  If;  Deut.  XXXIV,  9).  The  spirituality 
of  God  is  simply  taken  for  granted,  it  being  under- 
stood that  the  essence  of  God  is  identical  with  the 
spirit  of  wisdom  (nD3n  nn);  the  same  Spirit  who 
called  creation  into  being  and  organized  it;  the  same 
who  inspires  the  prophets;  the  same  who  evokes  and 
sustains  the  spirit  in  the  flesh  (comp.  Gen.  I,  2  with 
the  passages  quoted  above  and  Gen.  I,  27  (verse  26 
evidently  belonging  to  B.  H.) ;  V,  1  and  IX,  6:  creation 
of  man  in  the  divine  image — cf.  below;  Num.  XVI, 
22;  XXVII,  16).  The  attribute  of  holiness  is  barely 
intimated  (Lev.  X,  3;  Num.  XVI,  3;  XX,  12,  13; 
XXVIII,  11;  Deut.  XXXII,  51).  In  the  idea  of 
unity  P.  C.  completely  follows  Deuteronomy  and  Jere- 
miah: angels  are  never  mentioned,  for  him  they  do 
not  exist  at  all  (the  passages  about  the  Cherubs  in  the 
tabernacle  weie  not  in  the  original  P.  C. ;  cf .  Tholdoth 
I,  p.  89ff).  The  revelation  at  Sinai  goes  on  without 
thunder,  lightning  and  fire,  only  the  Cabhod  appears 
"like  fire"  (Ex.  XXIX,  15-18;  cf.  below  and  Tholdoth 
p.  80).     The  lower  mantical  forms,  especially  necro- 


188  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

mancy,  are  most  rigidly  forbidden  (Lev.  XX,  6;  cf. 
below  and  to  the  law  of  Khareth) ;  which  prohibition 
corresponds  to  the  above  mentioned  fact  that  the 
prophets  of  this  period  frequently  accuse  the  people 
of  these  illicit  practices.  The  divine  revelations  to 
Moses  are  carried  on  by  the  Voice  which  sounds  to 
him  from  out  of  the  Tabernacle,  or  from  out  of  the 
Holy  of  Holies  over  the  Ark  (Ex.  XXV,  22;  Lev.  I,  1; 
Num.  VII,  89).  The  dream  as  an  instrumentality 
of  a  divine  revelation  never  occurs,  what  in  the  case 
of  the  Priestly  Code  which  usually  in  theoretical 
controversies  takes  his  attitude  by  silence  rather 
than  by  express  statements,  means  that  he  rejects 
that  means  of  prophecy. 

The  spiritual  conception  of  the  human  soul  in  the 
Priestly  Code  as  pointed  out  above,  involves  the 
concept  of  immortality,  but,  like  Deuteronomy,  also 
this  document  observes  eloquent  silence  about  the 
whole  question.  The  attitude  of  the  Priestly  Code 
in  the  question  of  retribution  is,  as  we  will  see  soon, 
different  from  that  of  Deuteronomy,  but  the  eschato- 
logical  superstitions  and  practices  among  the  people 
were  the  same  in  both  periods,  and  so  the  Priestly 
Code,  too,  found  it  advisable  to  suppress  all  escahto- 
logical  hopes,  or,  at  least,  not  to  emphasize  them,  in 
the  authoritative  document,  the  Book  of  the  Covenant. 

Man's  freedom  of  will  is  simply  taken  for  granted 
(the  passages  in  Ex.  VII-XIV  telling  of  the  hardening 
of  the  heart  of  Pharo,  and  thus  contradicting  to  a 
certain  extent  the  principle  of  free  will,  were  not  a 
part  of  the  original  Priestly  Code;  cf.  Tholdoth  I, 
p.  87-88). 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  189 

But  most  expressively  the  theoretical  standpoint 
of  the  Priestly  Code  mirrors  itself  in  its  conception 
of  history  and  in  its  practical  postulates  in  cult  and 
law.  Not  that  the  Priestly  Code  avoids  everything 
which  he  finds  with  the  opponents  of  his  school.  On 
the  contrary,  the  Priestly  Code  signifies  the  highest 
literary  and  artistic  finish  in  the  employment  of  the 
motif  of  attribute  of  Ezekielan  fashion  as  a  motif  of 
literary  composition.  What  he  could  not  take  from 
his  own  master  (Jeremiah),  he  took,  with  the  sovereign 
liberty  of  the  artist,  from  the  master's  great  opponent. 
And  not  only  the  book  of  Ezekiel,  but  also  the  entire 
literary  treasure  of  the  past  was  drawn  upon  for 
forms  of  expression  and  elements  of  literary  organiza- 
tion. However,  all  the  free  use  of  elements  and  motifs 
conceived  and  developed  in  the  opposing  school  not- 
withstanding, as  far  as  the  principles  go  the  Priestly 
Code  remained  the  most  radical  representative  of  the 
school  of  Jeremiah. 

The  Priestly  Code  carries  the  entire  historical 
development  into  the  plan  of  creation.  The  primitive 
history  of  mankind  and  its  continuation  in  the  history 
of  Israel  still  belong,  in  a  measure,  to  the  act  of 
creation  which  but  with  the  erection  and  dedication 
of  the  Tabernacle  in  the  desert  has  received  its  last 
finishing  touches. 

The  following  is  its  conception  of  the  course  of 
history : 

God  creates  the  world  and  rules  it  by  His  attribute 
of  rigid  justice,  the  principle  on  the  basis  of  which 
all  of  creation  is  organized  and  established.  Every- 
thing goes  well  on  the  ground  of  this  principle,  until 


190  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

the  generation  of  the  flood  is  reached  (this  is  the  first 
sin  in  the  conception  of  this  author,  who  eliminates 
the  stories  of  the  Paradise,  Cain  and  Abel,  and  the 
Tower — which,  no  doubt,  were  known  to  him). 
In  accordance  with  this  conception  the  Priestly  Code 
in  the  early  chapters  uses  exclusively  the  divine  name 
of  Elohim,  the  name  that  stands  for  rigid  justice, 
and  which  was  then  the  only  one  revealed  to  man. 
Then  came  the  corruption  of  man,  mankind  violated 
the  principle  of  justice,  it  indulged  in  violence  (Don). 
And  the  answer  of  Elohim  was  the  only  one  to  be 
expected  under  the  reigning  attribute — the  destruc- 
tion of  all  flesh,  the  flood.  Mercy  is  not  considered 
at  all,  one,  Noah  with  his  family,  is  saved,  only  be- 
cause he  was  "perfectly  just"  (Gen.  VI,  9f;  comp. 
Ez.  XIV,  14,  20).  Then  follows  the  Covenant  with 
Noah,  as  the  symbol  of  mercy,  and  the  Rainbow  in 
the  Cloud,  as  the  sign  of  the  Covenant,  appears  in  the 
distant  sky  (Gen.  IX,  9-17;  comp.  Ez.  I,  28  and  Is. 
LIV,  7-10).  Going  on  with  broad  outlines  of  the 
period  intervening  between  Noah  and  Abraham 
the  Priestly  Code  reaches  the  special  tribal  history 
of  Israel. 

Now,  how  does  the  Priestly  Code  dispose  of  those 
stories  in  the  tribal  history  of  Israel  which  were 
eliminated  by  Deuteronomy,  the  second  Book  of  the 
Covenant?  The  radical  way  of  Deuteronomy  was 
not  open  to  the  Priestly  Code.  In  the  first  place, 
because  the  attempt  of  Deuteronomy  to  cut  away  the 
entire  pre-Egyptian  history  has  not  proved  successful, 
and  secondly  because  the  doctrine  of  monotheistic 
creation  adopted  by  the  Priestly  Code  required  one 
continued   narrative  of  early   history   from  creation 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  191 

to  the  dedication  of  the  Tabernacle  in  the  wilderness. 
Thus  the  Priestly  Code  takes  a  middle  track 
between  those  of  EJ  and  Deuteronomy:  He  relates 
all  essential  events  of  the  tribal  history  of  Israel, 
inclusive  of  the  woman -figures,  but  eliminates  all 
those  involving  stories  which  in  any  way  may  be  sug- 
gestive of  ideas  subversive  of  his  principles.  Notably 
he  avoids  very  carefully  all  traces  of  angels  and  sexual 
motifs  (except  for  the  Dinah  story  Gen.  XXXIV 
which  is  related  in  a  few  words,  evidently  because  of 
the  emphasis  it  lays  on  circumcision  and  the  pro- 
hibition of  intermarriage).  God  makes  a  new  Cove- 
nant with  Abraham,  instituting  circumcision  as  the 
sign  of  the  Covenant.  This  marks  a  further  step 
leading  up  to  the  final  revelation  of  the  attributes 
of  mercy,  wherefore  Elohim  reveals  another  name 
of  His,  Shadday  (^SP),  an  intermediate  attribute 
between  "Elohim",  which  is  rigid  justice,  and  "JHVH" 
which  is  mercy  (Gen.  ch.  XVII;  comp.  Ez.  I  at  the 
end).  The  requirement  of  being  "perfectly  just" 
(DWi)  as  a  condition  for  achieving  divine  grace,  is 
still  valid  (Gen.  XVII,  1).  It  was  only  after  these 
intermediary  stages  that  the  great  name  of  JHVH  was 
revealed  to  the  greatest  prophet,  to  Moses  (In  this 
the  P  C  effects  a  compromise  between  the  older 
sources  E  and  J.  In  E  the  name  Elohim  is  the  only 
one  known  to  the  patriarchs,  Moses  receiving  the 
name  JHVH.  In  J  Abraham  already  is  acquainted 
with  the  name  JHVH.  P.  C.  then  follows  E  in 
delaying  the  introduction  of  the  name  JHVH  until 
the  time  of  Moses,  but  folows  J,  that  the  patriarch 
Abraham  received  a  new  divine  name,  but  this  was 
not  the  final  great  name  JHVH,  but  El  Shadday,  a 


192  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

name  evidently  introduced  first  by  Ezekiel).  From 
now  on  the  Priestly  Code  uses  exclusively  the  name 
JHVH.  In  conjunction  with  the  revelation  of  the 
great  name  the  Cabhod,  the  halo,  or  the  Rainbow  in 
the  Cloud,  which  in  the  time  of  Noah  appeared  on  the 
firmament  as  a  sign  of  the  promise  of  mercy  for  a 
distant  future,  appears  now  on  Mount  Sinai,  that 
the  entire  Congregation  might  realize  the  nighness 
of  divine  mercy  (Ex.  XXIV,  15-18).  And  we  have 
to  understand  it  so  that  it  was  the  reflex  of  this 
Cabhod  which,  according  to  this  source,  was  visible 
on  the  countenance  of  Moses.  The  great  prophet 
to  whom  the  great  name,  the  ideogram  of  mercy, 
was  first  revealed,  embodied  in  his  appearance  also 
the  sign  of  mercy,  the  halo,  the  Cabhod  (Ex.  XXXIV, 
29-35).  So  the  appearance  of  the  sign  of  mercy  is  in 
close  connection  with  the  act  of  creation  of  which 
the  rainbow  is  an  integral  part.  Creation  and  History 
are  bound  up  in  mutual  penetration,  and  both  of  them 
have  one  course,  one  goal,  the  bringing  about  of  the 
reign  of  mercy.  But  the  time  for  revealing  the  formula 
of  mercy  has  not  come  yet,  this  is  to  be  the  crowning 
phase  of  creation,  which  was  not  yet  finished  so  long 
as  the  Tabernacle  has  not  been  erected  and  dedicated. 
And  so  the  Priestly  Code  relates  of  the  erection  of  the 
Tabernacle  in  the  wilderness.  This  is  a  new  feature 
with  him,  the  older  sources  knowing  nothing  of  such 
a  tabernacle  (although  there  are  some  intimations  of 
the  existence  of  some  modest  tent  as  a  place  of  shelter 
for  the  Ark).  The  Priestly  Code  takes  his  picture  of 
the  Tabernacle  from  Ezekiel's  vision  of  the  sanctuary 
of  the  future,  and,  carrying  out  certain  changes 
required  by  his  principles  and  as  suggested  by  certain 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  193 

old  traditions,  he  transplants  it  from  the  future  back 
into  the  past,  and  from  the  holy  land  to  the  wilderness. 
What  Ezekiel  in  his  vision  saw  as  the  improved 
model  to  restore  the  destroyed  Temple  of  Solomon, 
the  Priestly  Code  conceives  of  as  the  original  heavenly 
model  according  to  which  also  the  Temple  of  Solomon 
was  patterned.  Now  follow  the  prescriptions  about 
the  Tabernacle  and  the  holy  service  (Ex.  chap. 
XXVff).  Then,  after  the  dedication  of  the  Taber- 
nacle, and  then  only,  the  time  has  come  for  the 
Priestly  Code  to  introduce  its  new  formula  of  attri- 
butes of  mercy  (Num.  VI,  23-VII,  If): 
"JHVH  bless  thee,  and  keep  thee 
JHVH    make    his  countenance  shine  upon  thee   and 

be  gracious  unto  Thee 
JHVH     lift    up    His   countenance   upon    Thee    and 

give  thee  Peace". 
This  is   the   Formula  of  Attributes  in   the   Priestly 
Code,  to  which  the  explanation  is  added: 
"And   they  shall  put  My  name  upon   the  children 

of  Israel,  and  I  will  bless  them." 
The  name  of  JHVH  now  stands  as  the  ideogram 
of  the  new  formula  of  attributes  in  the  Priestly  Code, 
as  it  stands  for  the  old  formula  in  the  older  sources. 
After  the  revelation  of  the  new  formula  of  attributes, 
the  Priestly  blessing,  the  Cabhod  (the  Rainbow  in  the 
Cloud)  appears  over  the  Tabernacle,  visible  to  the 
whole  community  (Lev.  IX,  22-24;  comp.  Ex.  XL, 
35).  The  revelation  of  the  formula  of  mercy  brought 
mercy  within  the  reach  of  the  people. 

The  suggestion  that  the  Priestly  Blessing  is  the 
formula  of  attributes  in  the  Priestly  Code  as  against 
the  old   formula   of  Thirteen   of   the  older   sources, 


194  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

becomes  at  once  clear  in  its  meaning  and  verified  in 
its  contention,  when  we  look  into  the  reasons  which 
might  have  caused  the  Priestly  Code  to  replace  the 
old  formula  by  a  new  one.  This  leads  us  to  the 
following  conclusions: 

The  Priestly  Code  introduces  a  new  formula  of 
attributes,  because  he  rejects  the  old  formula 
of  Thirteen  on  principle.  He  is  opposed  to  the 
attribute  of  Long-suffering  (wherefore  he  always 
uses  PjVp:  immediate  outburst  of  the  storm,  instead 
of  *|N  inn  which  still  admits  of  D-DK  TIN),  to  the 
responsibility  of  later  generations  for  the  sins 
of  the  fathers  (wherefore  the  word  IpS  in  the  P  C 
never  has  the  meaning  of  "visiting  sin"),  and  notably 
to  the  attnbute  "forgiving  sin"  (wherefore  P  C 
never  uses  the  phrase  jiy  NPJ  in  the  sense  of  "for- 
giving sin"  applying  to  God  as  in  the  Thirteen  and 
in  the  older  sources  in  general,  but  rather,  and  ex- 
clusively, in  the  sense  of  "bearing  sin",  applied  to 
the  sinner.)  The  forgiving  of  sin  in  the  Priestly  Code 
is  taken  out  from  the  workings  of  the  free  divine 
mercy  and  framed  into  a  legal  institution.  Remorse 
and  repentance  are  not  in  themselves  a  sufficient 
means  to  achieve  forgiveness  (as  maintained  in 
Deuteronomy),  but  it  takes  the  prescribed  legal 
sacrifice.  The  key-note  in  the  new  formula  of 
attributes  is  "Peace",  "Shalom",  a  word  which  already 
in  older  sources  often  connotes  mercy  (cf.  Jud.  VI,  24; 
Is.  IX,  5).  Scattered  elements  of  the  Priestly  Bless- 
ing may  be  found  in  older  (as  in  younger)  writings, 
but  the  Priestly  Code,  in  its  opposition  to  the  old 
formula  of  attributes  more  radical  than  any  of  the 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  195 

writers  or   literary   units   preceding   it,   signifies   the 
linguistic  formulation  of  the  opposition. 

In  the  Priestly  Code  the  principle  of  individual 
responsibility  appears  most  strongly  accentuated. 
The  principle  of  national  responsibility  is  not  relin- 
quished altogether,  but  it  is  confined  to  national 
sins.  The  permanent  institution  of  sanctuary  and 
sacrificial  cult  to  the  sustinance  of  which  all  contribute 
their  share,  protects  the  people  from  the  reign  of 
rigid  justice,  from  the  Magguepha  (plague),  in  that 
the  constant  efficiency  of  the  attributes  of  mercy  are 
assured  by  the  regularly  offered  prescribed  sacrifices. 
But  in  the  case  of  sins  committed  against  God's 
plan  of  salvation  with  Israel,  the  Magguepha  would 
set  in,  mercy  expressing  itself  only  in  the  limitation 
placed  upon  the  sway  of  the  scourge  as  to  time  and 
numbers.  Instances  of  this  sort  we  find  in  the  stories 
of  the  Spies,  of  the  Band  of  Korah,  and  of  Ba'al- 
Peor,  when  also  some  not  directly  involved  have  been 
drawn  into  the  thrown  out  net  of  the  scourge  (comp. 
Josh.  XXII,  17-20).  In  the  case  of  Korah,  Aaron, 
the  Highpriest,  stops  the  Magguepha,  using  incense 
as  a  means  of  grace;  in  the  case  of  Ba'al-Peor  it  is 
again  a  hereditary  priest,  Pinehas,  who  by  prompt 
and  resolute  action  stops  the  Magguepha.  He  wielded 
the  power  of  the  attribute  "zealous  God"  (El  Kanna" 
— in  older  sources  attached  to  the  "Angel  of  JHVH") 
and  he  was  rewarded  with  the  "Covenant  of  Peace", 
the  "Berith-Shalom",  or  the  "Covenant  of  Mercy" 
(Num.  XXV,  11-13;  "Shalom"  here  is  the  same  which 
we  find  as  the  key-note  of  the  Priestly  Blessing; 
cf.  Jud.  VI,   23,  24;  1   Ki.  XIX,    10-14).     Also    the 


196  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

inaccessibility  of  the  sanctuary  to  such  as  have  there 
no  function  to  perform,  is  considered  as  being  of  public 
concern,  so  that  the  violation  of  the  pertaining  laws 
may  cause  the  Magguepha  to  rage  among  the  people. 
And  even  of  these  sins  of  a  public  character  there  is 
no  account  of  sin  running  through  the  generations, 
only  the  present  generation  incurring  the  punish- 
ment. The  principle  of  national  retribution  is  thus 
reduced  to  a  minimum,  and  all  stress  laid  upon  the 
principle  of  individual  responsibility,  notably  for 
sins  which  are  in  no  direct  connection  with  public 
affairs. 

In  the  question  of  the  guilt-offering  the  Priestly 
Code  takes  a  compromising  attitude.  Previously 
this  institution,  as  far  as  it  enjoyed,  or  claimed,  official 
recognition,  included  also  deliberate  sins.  The  op- 
ponents of  the  institution  rejected  it  altogether. 
The  Priestly  Code  then  brings  about  a  compromise 
between  the  two  extreme  positions,  recognizing  the 
guilt-offering  for  unknowingly  committed  sins,  but 
rejecting  it  as  a  means  of  expiation  for  knowingly 
and  wilfully  committed  sins;  with  one  exception, 
namely  in  the  case  of  sin  against  property  where  the 
damage  done  can  be  made  good.  There  is  only  one 
kind  of  expiation  for  wilful  sins — Kkareth  (ma), 
eradication  through  the  hand  of  God  (Lev.  chapts. 
IV  and  V;  Num.  XV,  22-31).  Khareth  is  really 
nothing  else  than  individual  Magguepha. 

Thus  the  party  represented  by  the  Priestly  Code 
drew  the  most  radical  consequences  from  the  basic 
principle  of  the  School  of  Jeremiah.  What  we  have 
recognized    in    Deuteronomy    as   a    slightly    surging 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  197 

tendency  to  limit  the  workings  of  the  law  of  capital 
punishment,  condensed  within  the  party  of  the 
Priestly  Code  in  the  postulate  to  abolish  capital 
punishment  altogether.  And  even  in  the  only  in- 
stance exempt  from  this  postulate,  the  crime  of 
murder,  the  power  of  the  court  is  greatly  limited. 
The  court  is  to  prosecute  the  accused  and  bring  him 
to  trial.  But  when  found  guilty,  the  court  shall  by 
no  means  execute  the  murderer,  or  even  deliver  him 
into  the  hands  of  the  blood-revenger,  as  Deuteronomy 
has  it.  The  only  decree  the  court  may  give  out,  is 
to  withdraw  from  the  convict  the  protection  of  the 
law  from  the  blood-revenger.  It  is  for  this  latter  to 
get  the  murderer  and  to  overpower  him  at  the  risk 
of  his  own  life.  In  all  other  cases  of  capital  crimes 
(and  there  are  quite  a  number  — perhaps  28 — of  them 
in  the  Priestly  Code)  the  court  is  not  called  upon  to 
carry  out  the  execution  of  the  sinner.  This  is  the 
most  radical  consequence  drawn  from  the  principle 
of  rigid  monotheism,  which  rejects  the  angels  and  all 
intermediation  between  God  and  the  world.  God 
Himself,  and  He  alone,  rules  the  world  in  justice;  and 
it  is  not  given  to  the  court,  to  human  intermediation, 
to  decide  on  life  and  death  of  a  human  being  in  an 
irreparable  way.  There  is  always  the  possibility  of 
error  on  the  side  of  man,  while  on  the  side  of  God  there 
is  the  absolute  surety  that,  no  matter  what  happens, 
justice  will  be  done  in  the  ultimate  (cf.  as  to  all  what 
was  said  in  the  preceding  and  also  as  to  what  will 
be  said  in  the  following,  about  the  Priestly  Code,  in 
the  pertaining  chapter  in  Geschichte  der  juedischen 
Philosophic  II,  1,  text  and  notes). 


198  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


This  touches  already  the  chief  aspect  under  which 
the  Priestly  Code  is  to  be  considered  as  to  its  influence 
upon  cult  and  life,  the  aspect  of  legislation.  It  would 
be  altogether  amiss  to  draw  inferences  from  the 
Priestly  Code  as  to  what  the  actual  conditions  in 
religion  and  culture  were  like  at  the  time  of  its  com- 
pletion and  redaction.  In  the  first  place,  the  law- 
code  in  P  C  has  been  compiled  in  the  exile  on  the 
ground  of  older  elements,  and  was  calculated  to 
serve  as  the  Constitution  of  the  future  state  in  Palestine, 
And  secondly,  what  we  have  to  deal  with  here  is  a 
radical  theory  which  bravely  attempts  to  impress  its 
spirit  upon  life  by  bringing  about  a  radical  change 
rather  than  to  reflect  the  conditions  as  they  actually 
were  at  that  time.  From  the  Priestly  Code  we  learn 
the  ideal  of  the  spiritual  leaders  of  one  party  rather 
than  a  reflex  of  life  itself,  even  though  at  times  some 
such  reflex  pierces  perceptibly  through  the  carefully 
polished  surface. 

The  attitude  of  the  Priestly  Code  to  art  is  much 
more  conciliatory  than  that  of  Deuteronomy,  to  say 
nothing  of  Jeremiah.  It  accepts  the  absolute  pro- 
hibition of  images,  but  it  insists  on  the  employment 
of  the  highest  decorative  art  at  the  erection  of  the 
Tabernacle.  In  this  it  shows  the  influence  of 
Ezekiel  (of  which  much  remains  even  if  we  accept  the 
very  plausible  suggestion  that  much  of  the  grandeur 
in  the  description  of  the  Tabernacle  and  the  multi- 
farious sacrifices  was  not  in  the  original  PC).  It 
was  the  trend  of  the  age:  Sacrifice  and  Ritual  were 
then  very  much  in  vogue  (cf.  above),  and  the  Jeremian 
party  could  not  help  make  concessions  to  the  ritualistic 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA 199 

tendencies  of  the  age.  This  accounts  also  for  the 
Khareth-punishment  for  ritual  sins,  notably  for  such 
committed  in  connection  with  the  sanctuary.  The 
Priestly  Code  is  the  first,  and  the  only,  code  in  the 
Pentateuch  which  puts  capital  punishment  (Khareth) 
on  ritual  crimes.  The  first  Book  of  the  Covenant 
and  Deuteronomy  know  nothing  of  capital  punishment 
for  ritual  crimes,  even  not  for  the  desecration  of 
Sabbath  (for  which  the  Book  of  Holiness  has  execu- 
tion by  the  court;  even  though  otherwise  knowing 
nothing  of  capital  punishment  for  ritual  crimes). 

As  to  capital  punishment  for  incest  which  we  find 
for  the  first  time  in  the  Priestly  Code  (the  older 
sources  knowing  nothing  about  it  while  the  Book  of 
Holiness  has  placed  upon  it  capital  punishment 
through  the  court),  it  suggests  perhaps  that  the  Baby- 
lonian environment  necessitated  stricter  measures. 
This  may  also  account  for  the  rigid  stand  of  the 
Priestly  Code  against  intermarriage.  In  a  book  of 
Laws,  as  the  Priestly  Code  essentially  is,  we  cannot 
expect  any  messianic-universalistic  sermons.  Their 
absence  in  itself  would,  therefore,  not  indicate  any 
opposition  on  the  part  of  the  Priestly  Code  to  such 
ideas.  But  the  Priestly  Code  bears  altogether  the 
unmistakable  stamp  of  the  national-ritualistic  ten- 
dencies of  its  age. 

In  its  totality  the  Priestly  Code  represents  a 
finished  blend  of  the  highest  speculative  elements  of 
rigid  monotheism  with  elements  of  extreme  national 
ritualism.  It  also  contains  a  new  speculative  element 
which  seems  to  be  out  of  all  connection  with  the  pre- 
ceding   development,    but    which    was    destined    to 


200  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

achieve  great  importance  in  the  future.  It  is  the 
elements  of  the  Theory  of  Ideas  which  in  the  Priestly 
Code  appear  for  the  first  time  covered  by  responsible 
authority.  This  originally  Babylonian  theory  which 
later  was  taken  up  and  elaborated  upon  by  Plato  in 
his  own  way,  is  not  entirely  new  in  biblical  literature. 
Some  traces  of  it  we  find  in  the  book  of  Job,  and  even 
further  back  in  Jeremiah,  and,  notably,  in  Ezekiel's 
"model  of  the  house"  (cf.  above).  But  in  its  definite 
expression,  as  this  theorem  appears  in  the  Priestly 
Code,  it  is  a  new  element  in  biblical  literature  at 
large:  Man  is  created  in  the  image  of  God,  and  the 
Tabernacle  that  the  Israelites  were  to  erect  in  the 
desert,  is  shown  to  Moses  on  Mount  Sinai  in  a  heavenly 
pattern  covering  the  minutest  details.  It  is  evident 
that  the  Priestly  Code,  otherwise  disinclined  to 
mystical  elements,  admitted  this  theorem  for  the  great 
power  of  moral  persuasion  it  wields.  But  the  fact 
remains  that  with  this  theorem  an  element  is  intro- 
duced into  biblical  literature  which,  more  than  any 
other,  helped  Jewish  thought  on  its  way  toward 
philosophic  development,  and  which  evoked  in  its 
midst  the  great  spiritual  struggle  in  the  history  of 
religion,  resulting  in  Christianity. 

e.    The  Book  of  Holiness. 

The  Book  of  Holiness,  in  the  main  a  collection  of 
laws  with  a  Thochaha,  or  Admonition,  at  the  end 
(Lev.  XVII-XXVI;  some  sections,  however,  notably 
the  laws  about  Khareth,  belonging  to  P  C), 
in  the  shape  in  which  it  was  offered  as  Book  of  the 
Covenant,  is  a  compilation  lacking  in  literary  unity. 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  201 

In  the  collection  of  laws  embodied  in  this  book  those 
points  are  especially  elaborated  upon  in  which  the 
adherents  of  this  party  differed  with  their  opponents 
of  the  Priestly  Code.  As  Book  of  the  Covenant  it 
must  have  had  a  historic  introduction.  Indeed,  all 
tends  to  confirm  the  assumption  that  the  Book  of 
Holiness  contained  the  early  history  of  the  tribes  in 
the  fashion  of  EJ.  In  other  words,  the  story  of  EJ 
was  given  as  the  introduction  to  the  collection  of  laws 
which  in  the  main  make  up  what  there  is  of  new 
material  found  in  the  Pentateuch  and  traced  to  this 
source.  Furthermore,  it  seems  that  the  tribal 
history,  as  taken  from  EJ,  was  complemented  by  that 
sketch  of  primitive  history  which  we  find  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Pentateuch  and  which  is  called  the  second 
report  of  creation  (Gen.  chaps.  II-XI,  minus  the  ele- 
ments belonging  to  P  C).  Thus  the  Book  of  Holiness 
in  the  shape  in  which  it  was  presented  by  its  promoters 
with  the  claim  to  be  made  the  Book  of  the  (new) 
Covenant,  stood  in  all  questions  of  principle,  inclusive 
of  the  question  of  angels,  on  the  ground  of  old,  pre- 
Jeremian  Judaism.  At  the  same  time,  however,  it 
contained  some  new  elements  which  are  absent  in 
the  pre-Jeremian  sources.  First  of  all  the  modified 
report  of  creation  which  we  believe  to  have  opened 
the  original  Book  of  Holiness,  is  in  reality  nothing 
else  than  a  more  monotheistic  elaboration  of  that 
Babylonian  cosmogony  elements  of  which  we  find  in 
Ezekiel  (ch.  I).  Also  in  the  present  shape  this  second 
report  of  creation  dwells  much  on  the  important 
functions  of  the  angels  in  the  act  of  creation,  yet  it 
is  all  but  evident  that  the  older  sources  from  which 


202  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


the  second  report  of  creation  was  drawn,  contained 
some  more  cosmogonic  elements  of  such  a  nature  that 
even  the  Ezekielian  school  found  them  objectionable. 

The  Book  of  Holiness,  considered  as  a  whole, 
inclusive  of  the  assumed  introduction  consisting  of 
the  second  report  of  creation,  or  J*  ( — younger  J), 
and  the  tribal  history  of  EJ,  presents  itself  in  the 
following  setting: 

The  author  of  the  narrative,  evidently  because 
of  his  belief  in  angels,  from  the  very  start  uses  the 
combined  name  JHVH-Elohim,  but  only  where  he 
himself  is  speaking,  using  Elohim  alone  wherever 
the  creatures  speak  of  God  (Gen.  Ill,  1,  3,  5).  Clearly 
the  creatures  do  not  know  of  the  name  JHVH  as  yet. 
The  first  sin  (Gen.  Ill,  the  sin  about  the  Tree  of 
Knowledge)  winds  up  without  mercy.  And,  mark, 
it  is  the  angels,  the  Cherubs  with  the  sword,  who  bar 
the  first  pair  of  humans  from  the  Paradise  (Gen. 
Ill,  2,  4;  comp.  Josh.  V,  13,  14;  2  Sam.  XXIV,  16, 
17,  as  comp.  with  1  Chr.  XXI,  16;  Ez.  ch.  IX). 
Then  comes  the  second  sin:  Cain.  This  sinner  does 
appeal  to  the  (old)  formula  of  attributes  of  mercy 
(IV,  13),  nay,  God  himself  suggests  to  him  the  pos- 
sibility of  mercy  blotting  out  sin  (IV,  7).  In  this 
chapter  the  author  uses  exclusively  the  name  JHVH: 
to  mark  the  solemn  occasion  of  the  introduction  of  the 
attributes  of  mercy.  The  mortals,  however,  as  yet 
do  not  know  the  name  JHVH.  There  is  only  given  a 
sign  of  mercy,  on  the  body  of  the  one  who  is  to  receive 
it,  the,  so  thoroughly  misunderstood,  sigw  of  Cain  (on 
his  forehead,  comp.  Ez.  IX,  4,  6;  Ex.  XXVIII,  36). 
This  sign  is  a  parallel  to  signs  given  to  Noah,  Abraham 
and  Moses  in  the  other  sources  (Rainbow,  Circumcision, 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA 203 

conversion  of  staff  into  serpent  and  the  reconversion 
of  serpent  into  staff).  In  E  and  PC  the  name  of 
JHVH  and  the  attributes  of  mercy  are  revealed  to 
Moses,  in  J  to  Abraham,  but  here,  in  BH,  the  name 
of  JHVH  is  revealed  in  the  time  of  Sheth  (Gen.  IV,  26). 
And  from  now  on  the  author,  too,  uses  exclusively 
the  name  JHVH.  A  higher  grade  of  mercy  is  reached 
by  the  sacrifices  offered  by  Noah  after  the  flood 
(Gen.  VIII,  20-22),  and  still  higher  powers  of  mercy 
are  suggested  by  Sinai  and  Tabernacle.  The  same 
Cherubs  which  barred  the  first  humans  from  the 
Paradise,  are  now  carrying  out  the  functions  of 
mediators  of  mercy  in  the  Tabernacle  (comp.|  Ez. 
VIII,  2,  3;  IX,  3f  ;Zech.  Ill,  If;  IV,  If:  Ps.  LXXX,  2f, 
and  Tholdoth  I,  where  it  is  shown  that  the  passages 
in  Exodus  about  the  Cherubs  in  the  Tabernacle  can 
by  no  means  be  attributed  to  PC,  and  that  they  rather 
belong  to  the  same  source  as  the  Cherubs  before  the 
Paradise). 

The  God-conception  of  the  Book  of  Holiness,  in 
spite  of  the  cosmological  interest  shown  in  the  (second) 
report  of  creation,  has  remained  essentially  the  same 
as  in  pre-Deuteronomic  times.  But  there  is  some  new 
emphasis  laid  in  the  Book  of  Holiness  upon  the  idea 
of  divine  holiness  which  we  know  from  Ezekiel 
(BH  in  Lev.  XI,  44,  45;  XVIII,  21;  XIX,  1,  8,  12; 
XX,  3,  7,  8,  26;  XXI,  8,  15,  23;  XX,  2,  9,  10,  32). 
It  is  safe  to  assume  that  the  strong  emphasis  laid 
on  the  divine  attribute  of  holiness  in  the  Ezekielian 
school  was  meant  to  counteract  the  anticipated 
harmful  influence  of  the  stories  based  on  motifs  of 
angels  and  their  sexual  relations  to  humans,  stories 
which  the  Book  of  Holiness  may  have  contained  to  a 


204  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


larger  extent  than  now  ascertainable.     But  the  fact 
remains,  the  Ezekielian   school  must  be  given  credit 
for   the  clear  expression   given   to  this  high   ethical 
idea  which  signifies  such  a  decisive  progress  in   the 
development  of  the  God-conception.     This  emphasis 
laid  on  the  idea  of  holiness  by  the  Book  of  Holiness 
(whence  its  name),  is  polemically  directed  against  the 
emphasis  laid  in  the  Priestly  Code  on  the  monotheistic 
theory  of  creation.     So,  for  instance,  in  the  different 
reasons  given  by  these  two  sources  for  Sabbath  (BH  in 
Ex.  XXXI,   13-15:  the  attribute  of  holiness;  PC  Ex. 
XXXI,  16-17:  creation;  comp.  Ex.  XX,  11;  Ez.  XX, 
12-24).     The  same  controversy  we  find  with  regard 
to  the  inalienability  of  land  property  in  the  land  of 
Israel.     As  against  the  Priestly  Code  which  takes  the 
reason    from    the    monotheistic    theory   of   creation: 
"for  Mine  is  the  earth!"  (Lev.  XXV,  23),  the  Book  of 
Holiness  simply  refers  to  the  ethical  God-conception: 
"for  I  am  JHVH,  your  Elohim!"  (ibid  17).     Indeed, 
this  controversy  is  not  confined  to  the  two  command- 
ments mentioned,  but  extends  to  the  reason  for  all 
commandments:    According    to    the    Priestly    Code 
the  binding  force  of  the  Torah  rests  on  the  idea  of 
monotheistic    creation,    according    to    the    Book    of 
Holiness  it  rests  on  the  ethical  God-idea.     And  yet, 
this    controversy    was    merely    concomitant    to    the 
historical  conditions  under  which  the  issues  and  side- 
issues  between    the   two   main   schools  evolved.     In 
itself  the  idea  of  extreme  holiness  contained  nothing 
which    the   school   of   Jeremiah    had   to   antagonize. 
On  the  contrarv,  this  school  rejected  the  old  popular 
conception    of    primitive    history    just    because    they 
deemed   it  harmful  to  the  realisation   of  holiness  in 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  205 

life;  their  only  concern  having  been  to  have  the  laws 
of  holiness  based  on  the  cosmological  God-conception, 
considering  it,  as  they  did,  as  the  only  basis  solid 
enough  to  support  a  life-system  of  holiness. 

In  all  other  theoretical  questions,  such  as  prophecy, 
freedom  of  ivill  and  retribution,  the  Book  of  Holiness 
stands  on  the  ground  of  the  older,  pre-Deuteronomic, 
sources,  which  is  natural,  considering  the  fact,  that, 
following  their  founder  and  leader,  the  Ezekielian 
school  never  recognized  the  Deuteronomic  Covenant. 
But  this  holds  true  only  as  regards  the  general  trend 
of  ideas,  in  detail  there  are  some  qualifications. 

First  of  all  there  opens  a  new  aspect  in  the  question 
of  immortality.  As  to  the  substantiality  of  the  soul, 
the  second  report  of  creation  (which  we  assume  to 
have  been  embodied  in  the  introduction  of  BH) 
stands  on  the  ground  common  to  all  biblical  writers. 
This  stand  appears  especially  emphasized  here  in  the 
specific  act  of  creation  of  man's  soul  on  which  this 
writer  elaborately  expatiates  (Gen.  II,  7).  This 
account,  however,  goes  beyond  all  other  sources  in 
its  direct  treatment  of  the  question  whether  there 
was  any  possibility  for  man  to  acquire  eternal  life 
(Paradise  story).  True,  the  amount  of  the  pertaining 
story  in  its  present  shape  is  a  negative  one ;  yet  there 
is  ample  reason  to  believe  that  in  its  origin,  or  in  one 
of  its  phases  in  the  course  of  time,  this  story  had  a  more 
pleasing  end  (in  later  products,  of  the  Graeco-Jewish 
period,  there  is  sufficient  evidence  that  the  end  of 
the  story  at  one  time  was  the  promise  of  immortality 
at  the  "end  of  all  things" — comp.  The  Life  of  Adim 
and  Eve,  and  similar  writings).  And  in  connection 
with  the  question  of  eternal  life  also  the  problem    of 


206  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

jree  -will  is  touched  in  the  Paradise  story  in  a  very 
peculiar  way.  It  has  already  been  mentioned  above, 
that  the  misgivings  ascribed  to  God  in  the  second 
account  of  creation:  "Lest  man  take  from  the  Tree 
of  life  and  live  eternally"  (Gen.  Ill,  26),  really  means 
divine  fear  of  man's  free  will  and  the  attempt  to 
prevent  him  from  exacting  this  great  power  of  his. 
This  is  quite  in  keeping  with  what  we  remember  of 
similar  tendencies  in  older  pre-Deuteronomic  sources 
on  which  the  Book  of  Holiness  drew  for  its  historical 
introduction.  But  here  we  find  quite  an  elaborate 
view  on  the  question  of  free  will: 

Man  was  endowed  with  free  will  from  his  very 
origin.  When  the  command  came  to  him  not  to  eat 
of  the  Tree  of  Knowledge,  he  had  the  power  to  obey 
or  to  disobey.  Originally,  however,  Adam  was  in- 
clined to  use  his  pow'er  of  freedom  in  the  direction  of 
the  divine  command  (which,  of  course,  means  a 
certain  limitation  of  his  freedom).  This  inclination 
to  obey,  this  source  designates  as  the  inability  to 
distinguish  between  Good  and  Evil.  And  from  the 
whole  context  the  intention  of  the  story  in  its  present 
shape  seems  to  be  that  of  conveying  the  following 
idea:  Adam  was  possessed  of  free  will,  but  before  the 
awakening  of  the  sexual  impulse  in  him,  man  was 
in  a  state  of  child-like  innocence,  always  inclined  to 
obey  (comp.  Is.  VII,  16  and  Jon.  IV,  11,  as  also 
2  Sam.  XIX,  36,  and  further  Is.  VIII,  4  and  Babli- 
Ber.  40a  bottom).  By  the  creation  of  Eve  the  pos- 
sibility of  losing  this  child-like  innocence  was  increased, 
yet  they  have  remained  in  this  state  even  after  the 
awakening  of  the  sexual  impulse  and  its  gratification. 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  207 

In  this  state  the  humans  would  have  remained 
eternally,  had  they  not  eaten  from  the  Tree  of  Knowl- 
edge and  had  not  acquired  the  power  of  distinguishing 
between  Good  and  Evil,  originally  an  exclusive  pos- 
session of  the  divine  (and  even  the  angels  go  wrong 
if  they  follow  the  sexual  impulse  from  which  they 
are  not  entirely  free,  according  to  an  old  inferior 
conception  of  the  divine  preserved  in  this  source, 
Gen.  VI,  If).  And  had  the  humans  remained  in  this 
state,  they  never  would  have  thought  of  reaching  out 
after  the  Tree  of  Life.  But  now,  after  their  awaken- 
ing, God  had  to  take  His  measures  to  bar  man  from 
the  possibility  of  achieving  eternal  life  in  the  flesh 
(comp.  Gen.  VI,  3:  nevertheless,  in  the  case  of  Enoch 
the  possibility  of  immortality  in  the  flesh  seems  not 
to  have  been  entirely  out  of  the  question,  V,  24). 
The  question  of  immortality  of  the  soul  outside  the 
body  is  not  touched  here,  although  the  doctrines  and 
legends  of  Babylonian  and  Egyptian  eschatology 
cannot  have  remained  unfamiliar  to  this  writer. 
Either  he  imposed  upon  himself  the  same  restraint 
as  the  other  biblical  writers,  or  the  pertaining  elements, 
if  ever  there  were  such  in  the  original  account,  have 
been  effectively  "hidden  away",  or  eliminated.  And 
then,  too,  the  distinction  between  the  corporeal  and 
the  spiritual  in  the  entire  Ezekielian  school  was  not 
exactly  insisted  upon  as  it  was  in  the  Jeremian 
school  (notably  not  in  the  conception  of  things  as 
we  find  them  in  the  source  J2  in  Gen.  chaps.  II-XI, 
and  as  especially  evident  from  Gen.  VI,  If,  where 
the  angels  are  brought  into  sexual  relation  with  the 
1  'daughters  of  Adam"). 


208  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

The  influence  of  these  mythological  conceptions 
is  quite  perceptible  also  in  the  forms  of  prophetical 
revelations  found  in  the  constituent  parts  of  the  Book 
of  Holiness.  Adam  and  Eve  see  with  their  own 
eyes  of  flesh  the  Cherubs  with  the  sword  which  bar 
them  from  the  Paradise.  God  Himself  does  not 
appear  in  human  form  in  the  present  conception  of 
the  Paradise-Legend.  But  another  passage,  one 
which  most  likely  was  embodied  in  the  historical 
introduction  of  the  Book  of  Holiness,  admits  the 
revelation  of  God  Himself  in  human  forms:  The 
prayer  of  Moses  to  be  permitted  to  see  the  Cabhod  of 
God,  is  answered  with  the  restriction  that  the  living 
man  (in  the  flesh)  can  see  only  the  back,  but  not  the 
face  of  God  (Ex.  XXXIII,  20-23;  comp.  Ez.  ch.  I 
and  parallels.) 

As  to  the  practical  consequences  from  the  theoretical 
principles  it  is,  as  has  already  been  mentioned,  safe 
to  assume  that  the  Cherubs  in  the  Tabernacle  were 
a  postulate  of  the  Book  of  Holiness  (which  may  be 
said  also  of  many  an  other  element  of  the  ornamental 
pomp  and  of  the  wasteful  abundance  of  sacrifices, 
wrongly  ascribed  to  PC).  Thus  we  may  consider 
the  party  represented  by  the  Book  of  Holiness  as 
adherents  of  Ezekiel  also  by  reason  of  their  more 
favorable  attitude  toward  the  plastic  and  decorative 
arts  within  the  limits  of  lawfulness.  And  this  is 
quite  in  accordance  with  the  almost  scientific  interest 
that  this  source  takes  in  the  origins  ol  human  civiliza- 
tion as  to  the  primitive  development  of  arts  and 
crafts,  as  also  in  the  general  mental  evolution  of  man: 
The    Paradise   legend   explains    the   origin    of   man's 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  209 

recognition  of  Good  and  Evil;  the  names  of  the 
founders  of  cities  and  of  tents  and  herd-camps,  as 
also  those  of  the  inventors  of  musical  instruments 
and  of  the  first  artificers  in  brass  and  iron-work,  are 
registered  (Gen.  IV,  17-22);  the  origin  of  the  Giants 
is  explained  (VI,  1-4);  Noah  is  mentioned  as  the  first 
vine-planter  (IX,  20f),and  Nimrod  as  the  first  hunter 
CX,  8f).  But  the  most  noteworthy  of  all  is  the 
attempt  to  explain  the  difference  of  language,  as 
found  in  the  legend  of  the  Tower  (XI,  1-9). 

In  the  sphere  of  the  principle  of  responsibility  and 
retribution  it  had  already  been  mentioned  that  the 
Book  of  Holiness,  as  representative  of  the  old  formula 
of  attributes  and  of  the  doctrine  of  angels,  defends 
the  institution  of  capital  punishment  and  increases 
the  number  of  capital  crimes.  In  the  question  of 
guilt-offerings  we  may,  there  being  no  reliable  data 
on  the  subject,  well  assume,  that  the  Book  of  Holi- 
ness in  its  original  form  stood  on  the  ground  prepared 
by  Ezekiel. 

f.    The  Compromise. 

Thus  in  those  days,  so  decisive  for  the  future 
shaping  of  Judaism,  in  the  days  immediatelv  pre- 
ceding the  Covenant  of  Esra,  two  parties  faced  each 
other,  each  one  of  them  advancing  the  claim  that 
the  book  prepared  by  it  for  the  purpose  be  recognized 
as  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  and  be  made  the  basis 
of  Judaism  in  all  of  its  manifestations;  in  the  con- 
ception of  the  past,  in  the  God-conception,  as  also 
in  all  theoretical  principles  and  practical  postulates 
in   the   legislative,  religious  and  cultural  shaping  of 


210  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

life  in  the  State  to  be  restored  and  rebuilt.  Neither 
of  the  two  parties  was  strong  enough  to  carry  out 
its  own  program  to  the  complete  exclusion  of  the 
opposing  program.  And  so  it  came  to  what  is 
usually  the  course  in  cases  like  this,  they  came  to  a 
mutual  understanding,  they  entered  a  compromise. 
And  a  thorough  orientation  in  Bible  and  Talmud 
(especially  in  the  Mishnah)  convinces  us  almost 
beyond  any  reasonable  doubt  that  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant  of  the  Esra-Covenant  consisted  of  the 
Priestly  Code  and  the  Law-Code  in  the  original  Book 
of  Holiness  (Lev.  chaps.  XVII-XXVI  and  some 
other  passages;  to  this  and  to  all  that  follows  cf. 
Tholdoth  I,  p.  113-125,  and  Geschichte  der  jued. 
Phil.  II,  1,  p.  122-138).  To  the  attentive  reader  of 
this  Book  of  the  Covenant,  the  enlarged  Priestly 
Code,  the  evidence,  confirmed  also  from  other  aspects, 
continually  grows  that  the  school  of  Jeremiah  under 
the  leadership  of  Esra  was  represented  by  a  group 
small  in  numbers  but  strong  in  spirit,  while  the  school 
of  Ezekiei  consisted  of  the  overwhelming  numbers, 
the  large  masses  of  the  people,  silently  but  surely  and 
determinedly  folio  wing  their  leaders  in  the  defence 
of  their  old  Judaism  with  theories,  stories  and  forms 
of  worship  so  dear  to  their  hearts.  And  this  deter- 
mined the  character  of  the  compromise:  The  Jere- 
mians  were  victorious  in  the  principles,  while  in 
practical  questions,  directly  touching  upon  the  daily 
life  of  the  people,  they  had  to  make  concessions  to 
the  Ezekielians.  The  new  Book  of  the  Covenant 
received  its  report  of  creation  and  its  conception  of 
the  tribal  history  from  the  original  Priestly  Code. 
This  took  care  of  the  God-conception  and  of  all  other 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  211 

theoretical  principles  involved.  They  were  estab- 
lished and  confirmed  in  the  fashion  they  received  in  the 
Jeremian  school.  As  to  the  Law-Code  of  the  Book 
of  Holiness  and  its  concluding  Admonition  which 
were  admitted  to  the  combined  Book  of  the  Covenant, 
it  is  true  that  they  rest  on  the  basis  of  the  old  formula 
of  attributes  which  the  Jeremian  school  rejected. 
But  the  dissention  on  this  score  was  not  so  much  one 
of  principle  as  rather  one  evolving  out  of  the  peculiar 
circumstances  accompanying  the  controversy.  For 
taken  for  themselves  there  is  no  contradiction  on 
principle  between  the  ethical  and  the  cosmological 
God-conception,  as  indeed,  not  only  later  Judaism, 
but  to  a  certain  extent  already  Jeremiah  himself 
formulated  the  ethico-cosmological  God-conception 
(cf.  above).  Of  course,  there  is  the  vital  difference 
on  the  question  of  national  retribution  as  expressed 
in  the  attribute  of  'Visiting  the  sins  of  fathers  upon 
the  children"  which  was  rejected  by  the  Priestly 
Code.  But  in  this  question  the  Priestly  Code  party 
evidently  had  to  give  in  to  a  certain  extent.  The 
unacceptable  attribute  does  not  occur  in  the  sections 
admitted  into  the  combined  Book  of  the  Covenant, 
but  certain  passages  which  are  based  on  the  old 
formula  in  general  were  allowed  to  remain  in 
the  portions  embodied.  Thus  Priestly  Code  and 
Book  of  Holiness  in  combination  present  the 
cosmologico-ethical  God-conception:  God  is  the  creator 
and  the  ethical  ideal  of  man.  Nay,  He  is  the  latter 
because  He  is  the  former. 

In  the  question  of  angels,  as  in  all  other  theoretical 
questions,  the  original  Priestly  Code  has  impressed 
its  seal  upon  the  combined  Book  of  the  Covenant. 


212  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

The  accounts  of  creation  and  early  tribal  history  of 
the  Book  of  Holiness  were  entirely  eliminated.  And 
also  from  the  laws  of  the  Holiness-Code  evidently  all 
passages  were  removed  which  alluded  to  principles 
opposed  to  those  of  the  Priestly  Code,  at  least  wherever 
they  were  of  an  irreconcilable  nature.  What  has 
been  retained  of  the  principles  of  the  Ezekiel  school, 
is  the  emphatic  appeal  to  the  idea  of  divine  Holiness 
which,  taken  by  itself,  is  not  only  reconcilable  with 
the  basic  idea  of  the  Priestly  Code,  but  in  the  ultimate, 
even  as  much  insisted  upon  by  the  latter  as  by  the 
original  Book  of  Holiness.  Indeed,  this  controversy, 
too,  was  due  more  to  the  peculiar  circumstances  con- 
comitant to  the  historical  development  than  to  a  real 
contradiction  in  the  principles  themselves. 

And  also  in  those  practical  questions  in  which  the 
theoretical  p-inciples  are  immediately  involved,  the 
Jeremian  party  succeeded  in  prevailing  upon  their 
opponents:  The  absolute  prohibition  of  images  has 
become  the  recognized  law.  In  the  Second  Temple 
there  was  neither  Ark  nor  Cherubs,  nor  anv  other 
of  the  relics  guarded  in  the  First  Temple.  As  to  the 
employment  of  decorative  arts  in  the  sanctuary  there 
was  probably  no  serious  difference  betw-een  the  two 
schools,  as  also  the  Priestly  Code  insists  on  a  certain 
amount  of  display  in  the  decoration  of  the  sanctuary 
and  in  the  elaboration  of  its  service;  an  attitude  which 
must  have  made  it  impossible  to  be  too  rigid  in  these 
questions  in  thei*-  application  to  private  life. 

Of  the  concessions  to  the  LLzekiel  school  indubi- 
tably the  most  important  is  that  made  in  the  question 
of  capital  punishment.     This  institution  was  retained, 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  213 

but  the  Jeremian  party  succeeded  in  enacting  also 
their  institution  of  Khareth  in  certain  cases,  especially 
in  those  ritual  crimes  on  which  the  Book  of  Holiness 
places  no  death  penalty  at  all.  In  other  cases  the 
compromise  resulted  in  a  combination  of  both 
judicial  execution  and  Khareth:  The  same  case  ap- 
pears in  two  places,  once  under  the  injunction  of 
judicial  execution  and  once  under  that  of  the  Khareth 
penalty.  On  the  surface  it  seems  to  be  a  flat  contra- 
diction, but  Tradition  harmonizes  them:  The  judicial 
execution  should  be  carried  out  only  where  the 
evidence  of  the  crime  is  above  all  reasonable  doubt, 
while  where  there  is  the  slightest  shadow  of  a  doubt 
the  court  should  leave  the  case  to  the  workings  of 
divine  providence  through  Khareth.  And  also  the 
interpretation  of  Khareth  underwent  a  change,  con- 
sequent to  the  compromise  effected  in  its  application: 
Originally  Khareth  must  have  meant  more  than  mere 
intimation  that  the  sinner  would  surfer  "death  at 
the  hands  of  Heaven".  It  most  likely  implied  a  trial 
to  find  out  the  guilt  and,  if  he  was  found  guilty,  the 
"ban"  ol  the  accussed.  The  word  "Khareth"  as 
used  in  the  original  Priestly  Code  is  evidently  a 
technical  term  expressing  some  sort  of  a  proceeding 
leading  up  to  acquittal  of  the  accused  or  to  his  indict- 
ment with  some  practical  consequences  which  marked 
the  convict  as  one  who  has  forfeited  his  life  to  heaven 
(wherefore  PC  never  uses  ms  in  the  usual  meaning 
of  "making  a  covenant",  using  Dpn  instead).  But 
on  the  occasion  of  its  being  welded  together  with  the 
institution  of  judicial  execution,  the  practical  features 
of  the  Khareth  institution,  now  applicable  to  lighter, 


214  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

or  to  dubious,  cases  only,  have  been  considerably 
extenuated  and  mitigated,  even  though  never  entirely 
eliminated. 

In  this  harmonizing  interpretation  we  strike  the 
roots  of  Oral  Tradition.  For  not  only  in  questions  of 
principle,  as  that  of  capital  punishment,  but  also  in 
many  other  legal  and  ritual  questions,  there  were 
differences  between  the  two  Books  of  the  Covenant. 
And  they  were  important  and  far-reaching  enough, 
even  if  they  did  not  touch  directly  upon  the  very 
principles  themselves.  Contradictory  injunctions  of 
that  kind  were  retained  at  their  respective  places,  or,  at 
times,  alongside  each  other,  leaving  it  to  oral  interpre- 
tation to  determine  how  the  contradictory  injunctions 
may  be  correspondingly  applied  to  differently  con- 
stituted cases.  This  was  a  step  forward  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  principle  of  oral  tradiction  over  and 
beyond  the  status  reached  in  Deuteronomic  times. 
The  law-code  of  Deuteronomy  represents  the  law  of  the 
first  Book  of  the  Covenant,  enlarged  and  elaborated 
upon  so  as  to  adapt  it  to  changed  conditions. 
In  other  words,  what  has  developed  in  the  time  intei- 
vening  between  Sinai  and  Deuteronomy  as  oral 
interpretation,  has  then,  by  the  proclamation  of  the 
Deuteronomic  law,  been  converted  into  written  law. 
This,  of  course,  is  the  beginnings  of  the  deve- 
lopment of  the  principle  of  oral  tradition.  But  oral 
tradition  in  its  proper,  technical,  sense  means  oral 
interpretation  of  the  written  law.  And  this  has  its 
very  origin  in  the  circumstances  evolving  from  the 
compromise  between  the  two  codes  of  laws  of  the  two 
opposing  Books  of  the  Covenant.     In  certain  cases  the 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  215 

compromise  consisted  in  just  this,  both  injunctions 
were  retained,  with  the  understanding  that  the  har- 
monization in  their  application  is  left  to  oral  inter- 
pretation; a  procedure  which  in  the  course  of  its 
natural  evolution  led  up  to  the  formulation  of  some 
rules  of  interpretation,  some  of  which  are  already 
indicated  in  the  very  text  of  this  product  of  the  com- 
promise, the  third  and  'last  Book  of  the  Covenant. 
And  there  is  another  question  of  some  import  in 
which  the  Jeremian  school  prevailed.  This  concerns 
the  attitudes  of  the  two  schools  toward  the  second,  the 
Deuteronomic,  Book  of  the  Covenant.  The  Jeremian 
school  surely  had  valid  reasons  to  prepare  a  new  Book 
of  the  Covenant  to  supersede  Deuteronomy.  Deuter- 
onomy did  not  suffice  them  any  more,  from  many 
aspects.  They  had  the  doctrine  of  creation  to  take 
care  of  over  and  beyond  the  theoretical  interest  of 
Deuteronomy,  and,  in  consequence  of  this,  they  wanted 
to  have  in  their  document  a  certain  conception  of  the 
early  history  of  the  tribe  which  is  missing  in  Deuteron- 
omy. The  same  may  be  said  of  the  more  developed 
sacrificial  ritual  and  the  decorative  art  in  the  sanctu- 
ary. And  there  certainly  are  many  other  such  ritual 
laws  as  to  which  the  Jeremian  school  felt  the  need  of  a 
formulation  better  adapted  to  the  new  conditions  of 
life.  Nevertheless,  there  was  practically  no  difference 
on  principle  between  the  original  Priestly  Code  and 
Deuteronomy,  except  the  one  concerning  the  principle 
of  national  retribution  through  the  generations  still 
retained  by  Deuteronomy,  but  which  the  Priestly  Code 
retains  only  in  cases  of  national  sins,  and  only  for  the 
adults  of  the  present  generation .   Considering,  however, 


216  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


that  any  punishment  exacted  on  any  generation  would, 
most  of  the  time,  necessarily  involve  later  generations 
in  its  natural  consequences,  the  difference  between 
the  Priestly  Code  and  Deuteronomy  in  this  question 
is  reduced  to  the  very  few  cases  where  a  punishment 
carries  no  natural  consequences  to  the  following 
generations,  and  to  cases  of  private  sins  where  the 
Priestly  Code  rejects  the  principle  of  national  retribu- 
tion retained  by  Deuteronomy. 

Quite  different  from  this  was  the  relation  between 
the  original  Book  of  Holiness  and  Deuteronomy.  The 
only  point  in  which  these  two  documents  agreed,  was 
just  the  one  in  which  the  original  Priestly  Code 
differed  with  Deuteronomy.  As  against  this  only 
point  of  agreement  there  obtained  between  the  two  not 
only  the  differences  which  obtained  between  Deuter- 
onomy and  Priestly  Code,  and  which  we  have  found  to 
be  different  attitudes  not  irreconcilable  in  themselves, 
but  also  all  those  differences  on  principle  which 
divided  the  Priestly  Code  from  the  Book  of  Holiness. 
Acordingly,  the  party  of  the  Priestly  Code  had  no 
reason  to  wish  the  complete  abolition  of  Deuteronomy 
as  part  of  the  national  document.  They  most  likely 
would  have  changed  in  Deuteronomy  the  only  point  in 
which  they  differed,  had  they  not  had  to  submit  to  a 
compromise.  Not  so  the  party  of  the  Book  of  Holiness. 
Had  they  prevailed,  they  would  have  ousted  Deuteron- 
omy from  its  authoritative  position  altogether.  As  it 
was,  the  Priestly  Code  having  prevailed  in  all  questions 
of  principle,  Deuteronomy  has  retained  a  certain  posi- 
tion of  authority  alongside  the  new  Book  of  the  Cove- 
nant, the  Priestly  Code  as  combined  with  some  parts 


DEUTERONOMY  TO  ESRA  217 

from  the  Book  of  Holiness.  Deuteronomy  was  not  con- 
sidered a  part  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  but  it 
still  was  considered  a  part  of  the  "Torah,"  under  the 
name  of  "Repetition  of  Thora"  (  =  Deuteronomy), 
covered  by  the  idea  that  Moses  before  his  death 
addressed  the  Israelites  giving  them  an  outline  of  the 
"Torah"  as  embodied  in  the  new  Book  of  the  Covenant 
which  is  the  real  "Torah."  The  promoters  of  the 
Esra  Covenant  had  no  difficulty  in  accrediting  this 
theory  to  the  people.  And  before  their  own  conscience, 
too,  they  could  be  perfectly  satisfied  that  their  Book 
of  the  Covenant  is  exactly  what  Moses  wanted  to  be  the 
Constitution  of  the  Jewish  State.  More  than  this 
they  do  not  claim.  The  idea  that  Moses  himself 
wrote  the  entire  Torah,  inclusive  of  the  historical 
account,  is  asserted  neither  in  the  Torah  itself,  where 
Moses  is  spoken  of  in  the  third  person,  nor  elsewhere 
in  the  Bible.  This  idea  is  a  late  product  evolved  out 
of  the  struggle  against  rising  Christianity  (cf .  Tholdoth 
II,  the  chapter  on  'Torah  from  Heaven"). 

This,  of  course,  necessitated  new  endeavors  at 
harmonization,  as  there  were,  and  still  are,  certain 
discrepancies,  and  even  contradictions,  also  between 
Deuteronomy  and  the  enlarged  Priestly  Code.  And 
this  again  could  be  achieved  only  through  inter- 
pretation, thus  enhancing  the  principle  of  oral  tradi- 
tion the  small  beginnings  of  which  we  perceived  in  the 
new  orientation  necessitated  by  the  compromise. 


Fourth  Chapter 
THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD. 

THE  development  of  Judaism  in  the  time  which  is 
covered  hereby  the  admittedly  wage  designation 
"post-Esranic  period,"  evolves  its  features  in  very 
much  complicated  formations.  On  the  one  hand  this 
time  still  belongs  to  the  biblical  period,  especially  so, 
when  we  consider  that  the  task  of  the  final  close  of  the 
Canon  had  not  been  taken  up  before  the  days  of  the 
schools  of  Hillel  and  Shammai  (about  65  C.  E.),  and 
was  not  completely  finished  until  the  time  of  R. 
Akiba  (second  quarter  of  second  century).  On  the 
other  hand,  however,  right  the  immediately  post- 
Esranic  time  (notably  if  we  shift  the  date  of  Esra  down 
by  a  century — cf.  above)  signifies  the  coming  into 
visibility  of  heretofore  latent  currents  which,  while 
having  their  wellspring  in  biblical  thought,  are  already 
well  in  the  thick  of  interrelation  with  new  historical 
agencies,  and  manifest  themselves  in  new  forms  of 
expression.  And  if  we  consider  the  individual  move- 
ments in  their  characteristic  tendencies,  we  may  say 
that  in  the  time  immediately  following  the  period  of 
Esra,  our  attention  is  claimed  by  three  distinct  lines 
of  development. 

As  the  first  we  may  address  that  element  in  the 
general  development  of  the  time  which  is  evidently 
the  continued  activation  of  biblical  thought  and 
biblical  literary  form.  As  "biblical"  goes  here  that 
perceptibly  isolated  current  in  the  literary  activities 
of   the   time   which    is   mainly   oriented   on   biblical 


220  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

writings  and  biblical  themes,  possibly  still  fighting 
Semitic  paganism,  or,  at  any  rate,  against  the  Persian 
influence  of  the  late  biblical  period,  a  struggle  full  of 
victories,  but  also  of  concessions.  For  a  certain 
length  of  time  this  line  of  development  is  the  only 
one  visible  above  the  surface,  and,  apparently, 
absorbs  the  entire  fund  of  spiritual  and  cultural 
forces  active  in  the  field.  For  was  it  not  their  all- 
absorbing  task  to  lay  the  foundations  of  the  new 
rejuvenated  state  on  solid  biblical  ground  and  to 
guard  it  against  legions  of  politico-religious  adversa- 
ries among  whom  the  blood-related  Samaritans  were 
the  most  dangerous,  just  because  they  claimed  racial 
and  religious  unity  with  the  Jewish  people? 

Soon,  however,  a  new  element  distinctly  differenti- 
ates from  the  general  biblical  background,  New 
formations  surge  through  the  foldings  in  the  old  strata, 
and  new  colors  blend  with  the  old  ones  to  a  new  form 
of  expression  which  bears  witness  to  a  new  spring  of 
thought  and  energy,  not  easily  definable.  In  the  light 
of  the  later,  fully  matured,  formations  of  these  incipient 
elements,  we  call  this  new  form  of  thought  and  energy 
the  talmiidical  line  of  development.  What  is  generally 
called  the  Sopheric  period,  really  sets  in  immediately 
after  the  Esra-Covenant,  and  signifies  nothing  else  but 
just  the  beginnings  of  Talmudical  Judaism.  One  surely 
feels  the  potent  touch  of  Talmudic  Judaism  in  the  late 
biblical  writings:  There  lives  already  the  distinct 
consciousness  of  a  written  past,  as  it  were,  which  is  to 
be  developed  in  oral  tradition  and  converted  into  new 
realities.  This  new  spirit  has  its  origin,  as  it  has 
already  been  pointed  out,  in  the  fusion  of  the  original 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  221 

Priestly  Code  and  the  original  Book  of  Holiness  with  a 
view  to  harmonizing  the  discrepencies  by  oral  interpre- 
tation according  to  certain  rules.  Here  and  there  we 
still  find  attempts  at  taking  an  independent  attitude, 
on  the  whole,  however,  the  prevailing  attitude  is  that 
of  harmonizing  eclecticism.  For  new  great  develop- 
ments there  was  rather  a  lack  of  the  necessary  factor 
of  friction.  Semitic  paganism  had  been  completely 
overcome,  the  contact  with  the  Persians  had  soon 
spent  its  movent  power.  At  this  juncture  came  the 
Greek  influence.  This  influence,  intensely  perceptible 
already  in  the  latest  products  of  canonical  biblical 
literature,  imparts  also  to  Sopheric-Talmudical  thought 
a  certain  coloration  characteristical  of  the  entire 
talmudical  period. 

But  alongside  of  this  the  contact  with  the  Greek 
world  evolved  a  new  trend  of  thought  which  we  may 
call  the  Alexandrian  line  of  development  (beginning 
at  the  end  of  the  third  century  B.  C).  It  is  Alexan- 
drian even  though  its  beginnings  go  back  to  Pales- 
tine, because  this  trend  of  thought  had  to  tecede  in 
Palestine  before  the  strong  Sopheric-Talmudic  spirit, 
and  it  was  only  in  Alexandria  that  it  reached  its 
highest  degree  of  efficiency  and  developed  into  a 
powerful  entity  all  of  its  own.  The  difference 
between  these  two  lines  of  development  is  essentially 
this:  The  talmudical  line  represents  the  development 
of  biblical  Judaism  under  Greek  (Platonic)  influence, 
while  the  Alexandrian  line  represents  a  Greek 
(Platonic)  conception  of  biblical  Judaism  as  a  finished 
product  under  the  aspect  of  eternity.  This  line  of 
thought  found  expression  in  Graeco-Jewish  Literature. 


222  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

From  the  preceding  it  is  clear  that  the  post- 
Esranic  period  of  biblical  thought  cannot  be  presented 
in  an  exposition  entirely  isolated  from  the  other 
lines  of  development.  Rather  will  it  be  necessary 
at  times  to  extend  our  presentation  on  phenomena  and 
features  which  properly  belong  into  the  spheres  of  the 
two  atoresaid  trends  of  development.  In  general  the 
chronological  limit  could  be  set  at  the  time  of  the 
Maccabean  Wars,  or,  which  is  the  same,  at  the  time 
when  the  Book  of  Daniel  was  written  (about  168-167 
B.  C).  But  now  and  then  it  will  be  necessary  to 
consider  even  such  features  which,  in  their  consequenc- 
es, point  far  beyond  this  time. 

The  literary  units  representing  this  period  are 
Psalms,  Proverbs,  Chronicles,  inclusive  of  Esra  and 
Nehemia,  Koheleth  and  Daniel  (Esther  and  Song  of 
Songs  whose  final  redaction  falls  in  this  period,  have 
been  considered  in  connection  with  the  book  of  Job). 

1.    The  Final  Redaction  of  the  To  rah: 

The  fusion  of  Priestly  Code  and  Book  of  Holiness 
into  one  Book  of  the  Covenant  on  the  ground  of  the 
compromise  characterized  above,  was  a  renewal  of  the 
attempt  at  complete  ousting  of  the  narrating  sources 
E  and  J,  and  of  the  first  Book  of  the  Covenant,  under- 
taken long  ago  by  Deuteronomy.  And,  on  the  whole, 
this  attempt  was  much  more  successful  now  than  it 
was  the  first  time.  The  ' 'To rah,"  consisting  of  the 
enlarged  Priestly  Code  and  Deuteronomy,  was  for 
quite  a  while  after  the  Esra  Covenant  the  authoritative 
document  of  Judaism.  The  rigorous  weltanschaitng 
of  the   Priestly    Code  prevailed   among   the  people. 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  223 

The  prevailing  doctrine  of  attributes  was  that  ad- 
vanced by  the  Priestly  Code,  a  doctrine  which  knows 
nothing  of  forgiving  of  deliberate  sins  or  of  long- 
suffering,  and  which  even  tor  unwilful  sins  knows  of 
forgiving  only  by  means  of  the  prescribed  sacrifice  of 
expiation.  This  produced  that  fear  of  sin  and 
rigorosity  of  conscience  which  at  all  times  have  been  the 
distinguishing  marks  of  genuine  Judaism.  But  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  old  literature  was  not  ousted. 
For  not  only  the  masses  of  the  people,  but  also  some 
of  the  prominent  leaders,  poets  and  writers  were 
cleaving  to  the  old  narratives  and  to  the  ideas  they 
expressed  with  tenacious  love  and  enthusiastic  con- 
viction. And  also  the  general  conditions  of  that  age 
were  rather  favorable  to  the  conservative  bent  of 
mind.  The  movement  which  sets  in  soon  after  the 
Esra  Covenant,  and  which  is  already  essentially 
Sopheric,  to  wit,  the  movement  for  the  popularization 
of  Judaism's  Doctrine  and  Law,  necessitated  certain 
concessions  to  the  popular  mind.  We  know  that  the 
endeavor  at  popularisation  brought  about  the  change 
from  the  ancient  Hebrew  script  (retained  by  the 
Samaritans)  to  the  easier  and  more  modern  square 
script  in  use  since.  But  more  than  for  such  external 
measures,  the  situation  called  for  concessions  to 
popular  beliefs  and  popular  conceptions  of  things. 
In  addition  to  this  there  was  the  Persian  influence. 
One  of  the  most  prominent  doctrines  of  Parsism  was 
that  of  the  important  position  of  angels  in  the  relation 
between  heaven  and  earth.  This  enhanced  the 
adherents  of  the  doctrine  of  angels  in  Judaism.  And 
also  the  opponents  of  that  doctrine,  the  authoritative 


224  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

circles,  could  well  afford  to  be  less  rigid  in  their 
negative  attitude,  now  that  the  theory  of  monotheistic 
creation  took  firm  roots  even  in  the  hearts  of  many, 
if  not  of  all,  adherents  of  the  doctrine  of  angels. 
Against  angels  as  creatures  of  God  even  the  most 
rigid  opponents  could  afford  to  show  less  implacable 
opposition  (in  olden  times  the  angels  were  considered 
eternal  like  God  Himself).  And  then,  too,  at  that 
time  they  have  already  begun  authoritative  collection 
and  preservation  of  the  literary  monuments  of  the  past. 
And  among  the  old  writers  and  prophets  there  were 
such  as  stood  on  the  ground  of  the  doctrine  of  angels 
and  of  the  old  conception  of  national  history.  All  of 
which  evidently  so  strengthened  the  position  of  the 
conservatives  that  their  demand  for  a  new  redaction 
of  the  national  religious  document,  the  "Torah, "so  as 
to  have  their  views  represented  therein,  to  a  certain 
extent  at  least,  could  not  well  be  ignored,  or  even 
successfully  repressed,  any  longer.  And  so,  according 
to  all  the  evidence  at  hand,  about  a  century  after  the 
Esra  Covenant,  the  new,  and  essentially  the  final, 
redaction  of  the  Torah  took  place.  The  enlarged 
Priestly  Code  was  combined  with  the  narrative  of 
E  J  —  inclusive  of  the  first  book  of  the  Covenant, 
into  one  presentation,  to  which  was  added  the  Book 
of  Deuteronomy  as  the  "Repetition  of  the  Torah" 
(mm  rw»),  a  position  which  this  document  held 
since  the  days  of  the  Esra  Covenant  (the  addition  of 
the  second  report  of  creation,  Gen.  II-XI,  as  of  many 
another  mythological  element,  most  likely  took  place 
at  a  much  later  date). 

This  event  most  likely  took  place  at  a  time  of 
gathering  and  restoration   after  a   longer  period  of 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  225 

political  upheaval  and  general  interruption  of  regu- 
lated communal  ard  political  life  under  any  form  of 
established  authority.  As  they  gathered  the  remnants 
of  former  organizations  and  started  the  work  of  recon- 
struction and  reorganization,  the  time  was  extremely 
favorable  for  the  carrying  out  of  the  change  in  the 
complexion  of  the  national  document  and  for  replacing 
the  old  "Torah"  by  the  new  document  without  the  peo- 
ple at  large  noticing  much  of  what  has  taken  place.  In 
fact,  the  old  "Torah"  was  little  known  among  the  peo- 
ple, only  the  final  product,  with  the  popular  elements 
in  it,  having  appealed  to  the  heart  of  the  people  and 
gradually  become  popular  as  the  national  document. 
And  even  with  respect  to  those  initiated,  there  was  no 
serious  difficulty  about  the  change.  As  has  been 
mentioned  already,  at  that  time  there  existed  no  such 
notion  of  a  Torah  written  down  literally  by  Moses 
himself,  with  historical  narratives,  law-codes,  and 
all  (to  say  nothing  of  the  notion  of  a  "Torah"  as  a 
sort  of  heavenly  entity) :  Moses  is  spoken  of  in  the 
third  person,  thus  avowing  implicitly  and  explicitly 
that  the  Torah  is  not  the  product  of  Moses  in  a 
literary  sense. 

The  idea  of  angels  being  created  by  God  is  not 
expressly  stated  in  the  Torah,  it  is,  however,  implicitly 
suggested.  And  as  so  many  another  question,  this, 
too,  was  left  to  oral  interpretation.  And  in  general, 
with  the  final  redaction  of  the  Torah  on  the  ground 
of  the  new  compromise,  the  sphere  of  influence  of  the 
institution  of  oral  interpretation  was  greatly  and 
essentially  enlarged.  The  oral  interpretations  which 
have  become  necessary  after  the  first  compromise 
under  Esra,  for  the  harmonization  of  the  contradic- 


226  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

tions  in  theory  and  law  between  Priestly  Code  and 
Book  of  Holiness,  as  also  those  between  these  two  and 
Deuteronomy,  have  proved  insufficient  to  meet  the 
new  situation.  For  to  the  old  contradictions  new 
ones  have  been  added,  and  the  new  were  deeper  going 
and  farther-reaching  than  the  old:  the  contradic- 
tions between  E  J  (and  later  also  J2)  and  the  first 
Book  of  the  Covenant  on  the  one,  and  between  the 
enlarged  Priestly  Code  and  Deuteronomy  on  the  other 
side.  There  was  a  need  for  new,  more  precisely 
defined,  rules  of  interpretation  (cf.  Tholdoth  I,  p. 
126f.). 

The  eclectic  character  of  that  time,  thus  repre- 
sented by  the  Torah  in  its  present  form,  even  our 
Pentateuch,  mirrors  itself  also  in  the  biblical  writings 
of  that  period. 

Except  for  Chronicles  which  as  a  book  of  history 
presents  the  workings  of  justice  in  history  rather 
indirectly,  it  may  be  said  that  what  we  have  found 
with  regard  to  the  literary  units  of  the  preceding 
period  (such  as  Ezekiel,  Job,  Ruth,  Jona),  holds  true 
also  of  the  literary  units  of  this  period:  Their  chief 
topic  is  the  problem  of  the  "Ways  of  God,"  the  problem 
of  justice.  There  is,  however,  a  new  feature  which 
gives  this  period  an  entirely  new  hue  in  the  develop- 
ment of  thought  and  in  the  fashion  in  which  it  is  being 
expressed:  I  mean  the  Greek  influence.  The  mani- 
festation of  this  influence  is  twofold.  It  is  positive, 
inasmuch  as  some  writers  of  this  period  try  to  blend 
Platonic  and  biblical  elements  into  one  harmonious 
mold.  But  it  is  also  negative,  inasmuch  as  they  had  to 
fight  certain  general  Greek,  and  among  them  also 
some  specific  Platonic,  elements  which  were  favored 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  227 

and  embodied  into  Jewish  life  and  letters  by  the 
so-called  Hellenists. 

The  positive  Platonic  influence  which  chiefly 
claims  our  interest  here,  may  be  analyzed  into  three 
features : 

First,  the  problem  of  justice,  in  the  center  of  thought 
crystalization  in  biblical  speculation  of  all  times, 
was  the  strongest  congenial  feature  which  the  biblical 
spirit  found  in  the  philosophy  of  Plato  (the  question 
whether  or  not  Plato  knew  anything  of  the  Bible,  or 
was  under  its  influence,  directly  or  indirectly,  shall 
not  be  considered  here).  Plato's  intense  ethical 
God-consciousness  carried  so  much  of  a  Jewish  appeal 
to  the  late  biblical  writers  that  they  were  readily 
induced  to  weave  soma  leading  thoughts  of  Plato's 
philosophy  into  the  Jewish  system  of  thought  and  life. 
For  was  not  the  chi^f  problem  of  Plato's  philosophy 
the  same  which  from  the  very  beginning  has  always 
occupied  the  center  in  the  biblical  world  of  thought? 
What  is  justice?  and:  Which  life  is  the  happier,  that 
of  the  just,  or  that  of  the  unjust? — these  are  thr  two 
questions  around  which  swing  all  the  discussions  in 
the  writings  of  Plato  (cf.  the  outline  of  Plato's  phil- 
osophy in  my  Geschichte  der  juedischen  Philosophic 
II,  1  ch.  3).  As  a  consequence  of  this  influence  we 
find  that  also  in  the  biblical  writings  of  this  period 
the  question  of  "the  defense  of  justice,"  as  the 
explanation  of  facts  and  phenomena  of  life  subversive 
of  justice  is  called  by  Plato,  appears  in  the  technical 
Platonic  formulation  :  Who  is  happy,  of  whom  may  we 
predicate  ntPK?  (cf.  ibd.  p.  305).  In  connection  vvith 
this  we  also  notice  the  emphasis  laid  on  the  Platonic 
cardinal  virtues  of  Wisdom,  Fortitude,  Temperance  and 


228  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

(as  root  and  amount  of  all)  Justice,  as  the  core  of  the 
ethical  God-conception;  this,  however  in  harmonious 
penetration  with  the  Thirteen  Attributes  of  mercy, 
quite  unknown  to  Plato. 

Second,  the  old  biblical  thought  of  "walking  in  the 
ways  of  God"  (imitatio  dei — the  talmudic  p2in 
vmoa)  entered  a  fusion  with  the  same  element  in  the 
philosophv  of  Plato,  the  postulate  of  resembling  God 
(homoiosis  theo) :  Individual  and  state  shall  be  gov- 
erned theocratically . .  Except  for  a  few  isolated 
passages,  it  is  true  of  the  Bible  as  well  as  of  Plato  that 
the  form  of  government  of  the  state  is  a  matter  of 
indifference,  so  long  as  the  state  is  being  ruled  theo- 
cratically, which  means  under  dominion  of  the 
cardinal  virtues  for  Plato  and  under  the  dominion  of 
these  virtues  but  combined  with  the  Thirteen  lor  the 
biblical  writers.  In  fact,  it  may  be  said  that  the  bibli- 
cal writers  in  their  overwhelming  majority  prefer  the 
theocractically  ruling  monarch  to  all  other  forms  of 
government,  as  witnessed  by  the  commanding  figures 
of  the  ideal  rulers  created  by  Isaiah  and  other  prophets, 
notably  in  the  emphasis  laid  on  the  personal  element 
in  the  ideal  figures  of  David  and  the  Messiah  (cf.  ibid, 
p.  203-208).  Corresponding  to  this  is  the  appearance, 
in  some  biblical  writings  of  this  period,  of  the  ideal 
King  in  Platonic  fashion  and  of  the,  likewise  Platonic, 
thought  that  the  individual  is  a  miniature  state  which, 
accordingly,  shall  be  governed  under  theocratic 
principles.  In  this  wise  biblical  ethics  assumes  a 
definite  trend  into  the  sphere  of  political  Sophia, 
especially  in  the  Proverbs. 

Third,    the    preponderance    of    the    cosmological 
aspect  in  the  God-conception  of  the  Jeremian  school 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  229 

which  in  principle  had  conquered  the  field,  as  also,  and 
especially,  the  theory  of  ideas  which,  in  the  doctrine  of 
man's  creation  in  the  image  of  God  and  of  the  erection 
of  the  Tabernacle  after  an  ideal  heavenly  pattern,  had 
been  embodied  in  the  new  Book  of  the  Covenant  and 
thus  enjoying  a  certain  measure  of  authoritative 
recognition,  prepared  the  soil  for  the  metaphysical 
influence  of  Plato,  quite  perceptible  in  the  biblical 
writings  of  this  period. 

Analyzed  under  the  aspects  thus  circumscribed, 
the  biblical  writings  of  this  period  unroll  before  our 
eyes  the  following  picture  of  the  spiritual  and  cultural 
movements  of  that  age : 

2.     Psalms  and  Proverbs: 

Psalms  and  Proverbs,  different  as  they  are  in 
literary  form,  have  from  our  point  of  view  much  in 
common  which  suggest  their  joint  consideration.  In 
the  first  place,  the  measure  in  which  they  furnish  us 
information  on  the  spiritual  and  cultural  currents  in 
the  post-Esra  period:  Both  of  these  books  are  com- 
pilations of  small  literary  products  hailing  from 
widely  different  times,  writers  and  literary  schools. 
The  Psalms  for  the  most  part  are  evidently  the  product 
of  this  period,  even  though  it  must  be  admitted  that 
some  of  them  may  be  very  old,  and  that  others  are 
indubitably  of  a  time  preceding  the  Esra  Covenant. 
This  holds  true  also  of  the  proverbs  in  the  book  of  Prov- 
erbs. But  more  important  than  this  rather  external 
relation  of  these  two  biblical  books  is  their  intrinsic 
spiritual  commun  ion  of  in  terest .  Psalms  and  Proverbs 
deal  with  the  same  problems  and  stand,  with  regard 
to  all  positive  results,  on  common  ground. 


230  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Deducting  less  than  thirty  special  Psalms1,  it 
may  be  said  that  all  the  rest  of  the  one  hundred  and 
fifty  Psalms  which  make  up  our  collection,  have  for 
their  sole  topic  the  problem  of  justice:  Every  one  of 
these  more  than  one  hundred  and  twenty  psalms  is  a 
"defense  of  justice"  in  the  technical  Platonic  meaning 
of  the  word,  even  though  some  of  them  may  have 
originated  in  pre- Platonic  times.  Again  and  again  it 
is  the  defense  of  the  doctrine  of  the  happiness  of  the 
just,  in  spite  of  all  hard  facts  of  real  life  seemingly 
pointing  to  the  contrary,  what  the  Psalmists  in  the 
pious  outpourings  of  their  deeply  stirred  souls  are 
primarily  concerned  with.  This  doctrine  appears  now 
in  the  form  of  steadfast  faith,  now  in  the  form  of  a  more 
or  less  developed  argument,  then  again  in  the  form  of 
a  trembling  question  addressed  to  God  Himself:  how 
long  will  reality  continue  to  discord  so  crudely  from 
the  divine  moral  order,  and  again  in  the  form  of  a 
fervent  prayer  that  divine  justice  may  soon  shine 
forth  in  all  its  glory.  But  in  all  of  these  forms  of 
manifestation,  be  their  object  historic  justice  in  the 
life  of  the  nation,  or  be  it  every  day  justice  in  the  life  of 
the  individual— in  all  of  them  one  longing  struggles  for 
expression,  the  longing  for  the  justification  of  the  idea 
that  justice  prevails  in  the  world.  And  the  same  is 
to  be  said  of  Proverbs.  The  Proverbs  present  them- 
selves to  the  reader  as  a  collection  of  practical  rules 
of  life.  And  such  they  really  are.  But  in  their 
totality  they  lend  expression  to  the  same  doctrine 

i  These  are:  XV,  XVI,  XIX,  XXIV,  XXIX,  XXXIII,  XLV. 
LI.  LXVII,  LXXII,  LXXXVIII,  XCIII.  XCV,  C,  CIV, 
CXIII,  CXIV,  CXVII,  CXIX  in  part,  CXXII,  CXXXL 
CXXXIII,  CXXXIV,  CXLVII,  CXLVIII,  CL. 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  231 

of  the  happiness  of  the  just  as  the  Psalms.  Very 
often  one  proverb,  in  the  center  of  a  string  of  proverbs 
crystallizing  around  it,  would  express  the  basic 
thought  which  is  to  be  brought  out,  through  the  proper 
arrangement  of  the  individual,  originally  independent, 
proverbs  into  some  sort  of  a  coherent  unit.  And  in 
such  cases  it  is  almost  invariably  the  above  doctrine 
which  is  thus  pressed  to  the  fo^e  (cf.  II,  7-22,  continued 
in  III,  mark  v.  12;  IV,  18,  19;  V,  21;  VI,  15;  VIII,  35; 
ch.  X;  XI,  31;  and  all  the  passages  quoted  in  the 
following  solutions  to  the  individual  problems  treated 
in  Psalms  and  Proverbs). 

In  both,  Psalms  and  Proverbs,  the  whole  God- 
conception  is  placed  under  the  aspect  of  the  question 
of  justice.  Alongside  of  such  Psalms  and  proverbs 
which  deal  with  the  God-problem  exclusively  under 
the  ethical  aspect,  there  are  also  such  as  treat  this 
problem  under  the  combined  ethico-cosmological 
aspect,  be  it  under  the  influence  of  Plato  (notably 
where  the  doctrine  of  Wisdom  and  Logos  is  involved, 
as  in  Prov.  Ill,  19,  20;  VIII,  21-31;  XXX,  l-5;comp. 
Job.  X,  4f ;  XI,  2-6,  10-20;  XXVIII,  12-19,  20-28— all 
being  passages  which  evidently  are  later  interpolations 
inserted  in  our  period),  be  it  as  a  result  of  the  internal 
evolution  of  thought  in  the  Jeremian  school  (which 
applies  especially  to  the  Psalms).  In  the  Psalms,  the 
unjust  (VW))  under  which  term  often  (notably  where 
1  'traitor"— 1^2,  IT — is  used  as  synonym)  the  Epi- 
curean, the  Hellenist,  may  be  meant,  is  often  attacked 
as  the  denier  of  God ;  as  one  who  advances  the  prosperity 
of  the  wicked  as  an  argument  for  his  attitude,  denying 
the  existence  of  God  altogether,  or,  at  any  rate,  His 


232  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

interest  in  the  doings  of  the  world  of  men  (cf.  Ps. 
X,  4-6,  11-13;  XIV,  1,  2;XLII,4,  11;LIII,  2;  LIV,  5 
(DHT?  comp.  LXXXVI,  14);  LVIII,  12;  LXXIII, 
llf.;  LXXIV,  22;  LXXVIII,  8;  XCIV,  7;  CXV,  2;  the 
two  postulates  discussed  in  these  passages,  the 
existence  of  God  and  His  providence  for  the  world, 
taken  jointly  with  the  postulate  of  desisting  from  the 
attempt  to  bribe  God  by  sacrifices  and  the  like,  often 
met  with  in  the  Psalms,  have  their  parallel  in  Plato's 
three  theological  postulates).  As  against  these  heresies, 
the  Psalmists  lay  emphatic  stress  on  the  postulates 
denied  by  the  unjust,  the  postulates  of  God's  existence, 
His  omniscience,  omnipresence  and  eternity;  attri- 
butes which  make  up  the  essence  of  providence,  the 
attribute  of  eternity  covering  specifically  cases  of 
historical  providence.  Some  of  the  Psalmists  would 
add  to  their  steadfast  assurances  of  faith  in  the  rule 
of  divine  justice,  more  or  less  developed  arguments 
alongside  the  line  of  the  cosmological  proof  for  the 
existence  of  God  (cf.  VII,  9,  10;  VIII;  XI,  4,  5;  XIV, 
2;  XXIII;  XXXVII,  23;  XL,  5f;  three  postulates; 
LXV,  7;  LXXIV,  11-18;  LXXV,  3-8;  LXXVII,  14f; 
LXXVIII,  19f.;  LXXXIX;  XC,  4;  eternity  =  CII, 
13,  26-29;  XCII;  XCIV,  8-11;  XCV,  4;  CIII,  19f.; 
CIV;  CXV,  3f.;  CXXXV,  6f.;  CXXXVI;  CXXXIX 
(omnip-esence) ;  CXLVII;  CXLVIII).  In  Proverbs 
where  the  "fool"  (i>3D)  stands  for  the  unjust  and 
wicked  (JJBn,  *»T),  the  God-denying  attitude  of  the 
opponent  attacked  does  not  appear  as  sharply  defined 
as  in  the  Psalms,  still  once  it  is  expressly  formulated 
(XXX,  19),  and  it  is  even  more  so  indicated  in  such 
passages  where  the  opponent  is  fought,  in  the  same 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  233 

manner  as  in  Psalms,  by  the  strong  emphasis  laid  upon 
the  providential  attributes  of  God  (Prov.  V,  21 ;  XV,  3, 
11;  XVI,  2,  3,  9,  11,  S3;  XVII,  3;  XIX,  21;  XX,  12: 
cosmological  proof  =  24  and  27;  XXI,  1,  2,  30,  31). 

Another  point  in  the  formulation  of  the  God-con- 
ception common  to  both,  Psalms  and  Proverbs,  is  the 
fusion  of  elements  of  the  old  and  the  new  formulas  of 
attributes,  corresponding  to  the  fusion  of  ethical  and 
cosmological  elements  in  the  God-conception:  All 
Psalms,  inclusive  of  the  few  embodied  in  early  biblical 
writings,  are  conceived  in  the  motif  of  attributes. 
Psalms  are  Songs,  a  genre  of  literature  which  in  the 
whole  Bible  is  almost  invariably  held  in  the  motif 
of  attributes.  There  is  hardly  a  Psalm  in  which  that 
motif  is  entirely  missing.  In  most  of  them  nearly 
every  verse  contains  one  or  more  allusions  to  the  old 
or  the  new  formula  of  attributes,  if,  indeed,  not  to 
both  of  them.  In  some  of  the  Psalms,  especially  in 
those  of  historical  conception,  the  situation  presented 
in  Exodus  chapters  XXXIII  and  XXXIV,  anent  the 
revelation  of  the  formula  of  Thirteen,  is  very  inter- 
estingly reflected  and  varied.  In  some  Psalms  there 
appear  new  variations  of  the  formulas  of  attributes, 
recognized  and  employed  as  such  later  in  Agadah  and 
Liturgy  (cf.  Gesch.  d.  jued.  Philosophic,  II,  1.  p. 
152-156). 

Another  important  point  clearly  accentuated  in  the 
Psalms  is,  that  in  spite  of  the  many  temporary  names 
of  God  introduced  by  the  ancient  prophets,  the  name 
JHVH  has  remained  the  unique  name  of  God  in  the 
period  after  Esra  (cf.  Zech.  XIV,  9).  Of  course,  we 
find  in  the  Psa  1ms  all  divine  names,  and  combinations  of 


234  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

such,  used  in  the  rest  of  the  Bible,  but  the  name  of  God 
is  JHVH.  Not  less  than  a  hundred  of  the  hundred  and 
fifty  Psalms  are  absolute  JHVH — Psalms.  Twenty- 
seven  Psalms  are  conceived  in  the  evolutionary  motif: 
The  Psalmist  uses  Elohim  as  a  name  of  God,  only  in 
order  to  introduce  the  name  of  JHVH  at  a  suitable 
moment,  a  literary  device  which  we  know  from  the 
older  sources.  Nine  Psalms,  while  using  chiefly  the 
name  Elohim,  use  also  the  name  JHVH,  only  the 
fourteen  remaining  being  aboslute  Elohim-  Psalms. 
This  unexpected  phenomenon,  the  use  of  Elohim  as  the 
divine  name  (not  met  with  since  the  days  of  J!)  is  in 
part  accounted  for  by  special  situations,  as  the  relation 
of  God  to  the  nations  and  similar  special  features 
required  rather  the  general  name  of  God  of  justice  than 
the  specific  Jewish  name  of  the  God  of  justice  and 
mercy.  In  part,  however,  the  revived  usage  of  the 
name  of  Elohim  may  be  explained  by  the  suggestion 
that  on  account  of  prevailing  conditions  they  would 
rather  avoid  the  use  of  the  great  name,  out  of  appre- 
hension that  it  may  be  desecrated  by  the  nations  of 
their  surroundings,  and  so  they  would  pronounce  it 
Elohim  while  still  writing  JHVH,  some  of  them  even 
writing  Elohim  (comp.  Adonay  of  the  contemporaries 
of  Ezekiel;  maik  Ps.  XLV,  21,  where  the  Psalmist 
deplores  the  necessity  to  suppress  the  name  JHVH; 
cf.  Gesch.  d.  jued.  Philosophic  ibid.  p.  199-201). 

The  position  of  the  old  formula  of  Thirteen  in  our 
period  was  also  enhanced  through  the  contact  of 
Judaism  with  Plato.  The  rigorous  postulates  of  the 
Priestly  Code  as  to  the  means  by  which  to  achieve 
divine   grace,    were   among   the   congenial    elements 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  235 

common  to  both,  Judaism  and  Platonism.  It  was, 
however  just  this  disharmony  in  the  God-conceptions 
of  Judaism  and  Platonism  which  led  those  Graeco- 
Jewish  writers  who  desired  to  accentuate  the  specific 
Jewish  view,  to  lay  much  stress  on  those  distinguishing 
elements  of  the  Jewish  God-conception  which  are 
embodied  in  the  formula  of  Thirteen  (comp.  the 
Testaments  of  the  twelve  Patriarch,  the  Letter  of 
Aristeas,  Philo,  de  virtutibus,  and  other  Graeco- 
Jewish  wiitings).  Seen  thus,  we  simply  find  this  to  be 
one  of  the  points  in  which  some  Psalms  are  to  be  con- 
sidered under  the  aspect  of  Graeco-Jewish  literature. 
However,  also  those  Psalmists  who  show  Greek  influ- 
ence are  very  careful  to  emphasize  the  specific  Jewish 
attitude  wherever  feasible;  particularly  in  the  employ- 
ment of  the  motif  of  attributes  in  the  sense  of  the 
theocratical  idea:  All  of  these  thoughts,  scattered  in 
various  Psalms,  appear  in  a  concentrated  formulation 
in  two  Psalms  which,  from  this  aspect,  may  be  con- 
sidered a  twin  Psalm :  Psalm  CXI  presents  an  ethico- 
cosmological  definition  of  God  through  the  attributes 
of  the  Thirteen -formula  in  combination  with  the 
cardinal  attributes  of  Plato  (cf.  H3,  n»3n  and  fiKT  in 
6-10)  set  in  an  alphabetical  acrostic  (The  influence  of 
Plato  here  can  best  be  perceived  by  a  comparison  with 
the  acrostic  definition  of  God  in  Ps.  145  where  the 
combination  of  the  ethical  and  cosmological  elements 
show  no  trace  of  Platonic  influence).  As  a  counter- 
part to  this  Psalm  which  defines  the  attributes  of  the 
creator,  follows  Psalm  CXI  I,  likewise  an  acrostic,  in 
which  the  attributes  of  the  creature,  of  the  "God- 
fearing man,"  under  the  aspect  of  homoiosis  theo,  or 


236  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

resembling  God,  are  sung.  The  Aleph  of  the  acrostic 
is  represented  by  new  (Happy  is  the  man) :  the  just, 
the  God-fearing,  is  the  happy.  And,  as  in  its  individ- 
ual application,  so  also  in  its  bearing  upon  political 
ethics,  the  theocratic  idea  in  the  Psalms  is  the  con- 
sistent reflex  of  the  God-conception  as  elaborately 
formulated  in  the  Psalms.  This  is  evident  in  the 
historical  Psalms  in  which  the  argument  is  advanced 
that  the  violation  of  the  theocratic  principles  has 
always  been  productive  of  national  disaster,  while 
obedience  to  those  principles  has  always  meant  national 
greatness  and  prosperity  (cf.  Ps.  LXXIV,  LXXVII, 
LXXVIII,  LXXXI,  LXXXIII,  LXXXIX,  CV: 
tribal  history  in  the  terse  style  of  PC ;  CVI,  and  others), 
and  also  in  those  Psalms  in  which  the  ideal  King 
(Plato's  Philosopher  Ruler)  is  pictured  and  sung 
(Ps.  II,  XVIII,  XX,  XXI,  XLV,  LXI,  LXIII,  LXXII, 
LXXXIX,  CI,  CXXXII;  comp.  CXXII). 

In  Proverbs  we  cannot  expect  a  motif  of  composi- 
tion similar  to  that  found  in  the  Psalms,  neverthe- 
less there  are  in  individual  proverbs  as  well,  as  in  the 
manner  of  their  arrangement,  many  decisive  elements 
of  both  formulas  of  attributes,  and  even  new  forma- 
tions of  epigrams  of  attributive  definitions  (cf.  Gesch. 
d.  jued.  Philosophic  II,  1.  p.  156).  And  also  the 
general  usage  of  the  name  JHVH  is  confirmed  by 
Proverbs  as  much  as,  nay  much  more  so  than,  by  the 
Psalms:  The  only  divine  name  absolutely  used  in 
Proverbs  is  JHVH.  Considering  now  that  in  Proverbs 
undoubtedly  a  good  deal  of  popular  language  has  been 
conserved,  it  becomes  clear  that  JHVH  was  the  only 
divine  name  in  vogue  among  the  people  (cf.  XXX,  9 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  23: 


and  Gesch.  II,  I,  p.  197).  The  theocratic  idea  in  its 
Platonic  sense  is  the  central  thought  pursued  in 
Proverbs,  but  also  the  motif  of  the  Thirteen  is  accent- 
uated often  enough  (XIV,  17,  21,  22,  29,  31;  XV,  18; 
XVI,  5,  6,  10-16:  ideal  king,  32;  XVII,  5;  XVIII,  10: 
the  name  JHVH!  XIX,  11,  17  ;  XX,  8:  id.  k.  22,  26-28: 
id.  k.;  XXI,  13,  14,  21;  XXII,  11:  id.  k=XXV,  2-4; 
XXV,  15;  XXVIII,  8,  13,  20;  XXIX,  4,  14:  id.  k.  = 
XXXI,  1-9!). 

It  may  well  be  said  that  in  the  struggle  against  the 
destructive  elements  of  Greek  culture,  as  mirrored  in 
Psalms  and  Proverbs,  the  Jewish  God-idea  has  become 
clearer  in  its  conceptual  features  and  has  developed 
more  definitely  into  the  practical  theocratic  ideal  for 
the  guidance  of  state  and  individual.  Indeed,  we 
could  say  that  in  Psalms  and  Proverbs  the  principles  of 
the  Jeremian  school  appear  to  hold  unchallenged  sway. 
It  corresponds,  however  to  the  eclectic  character  of 
the  age,  if  here  and  there  we  find  traces  of  the  belief 
in  angels  (Ps.  XXXIV,  9;  XXXV,  5;  LXXXIX,  7,  8, 
11 :  Thiamat-myth ;  XCI,  11 ;  (XCIX,  1) ;  CHI,  20,  21 ; 
CIV,  3,  4;  (CXXXII,  8);  CXLVIII,  1,  2.—Prov. 
(XVI,  14?);  XVII,  11). 

A  new  feature  in  Proverbs  is  the  Theory  of  Ideas 
in  the  form  of  the  doctrine  of  Wisdom  or  Logos.  The 
theory  of  ideas,  in  the  conception  of  it  in  the  Priestly 
Code  (cf.  above),  has  nothing  in  common  with  the 
belief  in  angels.  But  not  so  in  the  Platonic  concep- 
tion of  that  theory.  To  the  Jews  of  the  Greek  period 
ideas  could  be  conceived  of  but  as  a  sort  of  angels. 
Thus  those  who  believed  in  angels  experienced  no 
difficulty    in    adopting    the    theory    of    ideas.     The 


238  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

opponents  of  angels,  however,  had  to  employ  the  art 
of  interpretation,  and  the  soil  for  a  convenient  inter- 
pretation was  well  prepared:  The  attribute  of 
Wisdom  was  pressed  to  the  fore  by  Jeremiah  in  his 
monotheistic  theory  of  creation.  But  Plato's  theory 
of  ideas,  too,  emanated  from  his  conception  of  the 
attribute  of  Wisdom  (the  cosmological  Sophia).  Now 
this  common  point  of  view  has  furnished  the  starting 
point  of  that  interpretation.  They  accepted  Plato's 
Ideas  in  their  undivided  totality,  as  it  were.  The 
ideas,  the  components  of  the  attribute  of  Wisdom, 
are  the  organ  of  creation  in  Plato's  philosophy.  The 
undivided  attribute  of  Wisdom  is  the  organ  of  creation 
in  the  conception  of  those  adherents  of  the  mono- 
theistic theory  of  creation  among  the  Jews  who  were 
influences  by  Plato,  but  insisted  on  the  rejection  of 
angels.  This  theorem  was  to  them  all  the  more 
acceptable,  as  the  exemplum  presens  of  that  Wisdom, 
the  Torah,  was  on  their  hands:  Wisdom  was  soon 
identified  with  Torah.  The  Torah,  according  to  this 
interpretation,  is  not  only  the  causa  finalis,  but  also 
the  cause  movens,  the  cause  of  creation.  In  the 
old  proverbs  the  Torah  was  extolled  as  the  emanation 
o  f  divine  Wisdom,  as  found  in  Isaiah,  Deuteronomy, 
and  other  old  writings.  These  ethico-theocratical 
thoughts  have  now  furnished  the  point  of  crystalliza- 
tion which  attracted  and  amalgamated  those  new 
elements  of  the  theocratic  idea  which  flowed  from  the 
Platonic  conception  of  it.  But  in  the  writings  of 
Plato,  especially  in  The  State,  the  theocratic  thoughts 
are  developed  in  intrinsic  connection  with  the 
cosmologico-metaphysical  foundations  of  the  system. 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  239 

So  it  happened  that  not  only  the  poem  which  had  for 
its  purpose  the  glorification  of  the  monetheistic 
theory  of  creation,  the  book  of  Job,  but  also  the  book 
which  has  the  theocratic  idea  for  its  central  thought, 
the  book  of  Proverbs,  has  attracted  Jewish- Platonic 
thoughts  on  creation  (Prov.  Ill,  19,  20;  VIII,  21-31; 
XXX,  1-5).  In  the  Psalms,  even  in  such  of  a  cosmo- 
logical  character,  nay  even  in  such  in  which  cosmo- 
logical  thoughts  are  interwoven  with  decisively 
Platonic  elements  (as  in  Ps.  Ill),  and  even  where  such 
elements  are  bound  up  with  theocratic  thoughts  of 
Platonic  fashion  (Ps.  111-112),  there  is  no  vestige  of  the 
doctrine  of  Wisdom  as  Logos  (if  we  do  not  consider 
CIV,  24  as  such).  This  may  be  explained,  perhaps, 
by  the  plausible  suggestion  that  the  Psalmists  were 
much  more  careful  in  adopting  Greek  elements,  and 
that  also  later  interpolators  were  less  daring  in  their 
dealings  with  the  Psalms,  because  of  the  place  these 
have  been  given  in  liturgy  at  an  early  period  (cf .  below) . 
Of  the  other  theoretical  principles,  prophecy  is  hard- 
ly ever  expressly  referred  to  in  Proverbs.  This  would 
at  any  rate,  permit  the  inference  that  gnomic  sages 
and  poets  were  not  much  interested  in  prophecy,  a 
fact  which  may  perhaps  be  taken  as  an  indication  that 
at  the  time  in  the  course  of  which  most  of  the  proverbs 
contained  in  our  collection  were  conceived,  prophecy 
was  no  more  an  actual  phenomenon.  Prophecy  was 
then  considered  as  "closed."  In  olden  times,  when 
prophecy  was  an  actual  phenomenon,  it,  indeed,  was 
made  the  subject  of  popular  gnomics  (I  Sam.  X,  12; 
Hos.  IX,  7,  8;  comp.  Jer.  XXIX,  26).  And  also  the 
Psalms  point  in  the  same  direction.     Actual  prophetic 


240  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

visions  are  mentioned  only  as  a  matter  of  past  ages. 
Moses,  Aaron  and  Samuel  had  prophetic  visions, 
God  spoke  to  them  through  the  Cloud  (XCIX,  6,  7). 
The  patriarchs  are  designated  as  prophets  (CV,  20; 
comp.  Gen.  XX,  7).  God  spoke  to  David  in  a  vision 
(LXXXIX,  20;  comp.  above  to  Zech.  XIII,  4).  From 
the  plaint  of  one  Psalmist  (LXXIV,  7-9)  it  could  be 
inferred  that  in  his  time  the  view  was  prevailing  that 
with  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  in  Jerusalem 
prophecy  had  to  cease.  It  would,  then,  appear  that 
this  Psalm  refers  to  the  time  preceding  the  erection  of 
the  Second  Temple.  For  the  time  of  the  Second 
Temple  the  Psalms  indicate  the  presence  of  a  reduced 
grade  of  prophecy  which  some  of  them  designate  by 
the  phrase  "God  spake  in  His  Sanctuary"  (LX,  8  = 
CVIII,  8;  LXII,  12;  LXIII,  3;  LXVIII,  2,  5;  LXXIII, 
17).  In  the  Psalm  quoted  last  (LXXIII,  17)  the 
Psalmist  expects  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  justice 
through  some  sort  of  a  revelation,  to  which  he  looks 
forward  at  his  next  visit  to  the  Temple.  We  have 
met  with  this  function  of  prophecy  in  Ezekiel  and, 
even  more  so,  in  Job.  This  reduced  grade  of  prophecy 
reminds  one  of  the  "Holy  Spirit"  (BHOH  nn) ;  comp. 
Ps.  LI,  13)  described  by  the  Talmudists  as  the  form 
of  prophecy  which  at  the  time  of  the  Second  Temple 
supplanted  genuine  prophecy  which  had  ceased  forty 
years  after  the  Restoration  (It  is  possible,  however, 
that  Ps.  LXXIV  refers  to  the  temporary  destruction  at 
the  immediately  pre-Maccabean  time,  or,  perhaps, 
to  the  final  destruction  through  the  Romans.  If  this 
is  the  case,  the  Psalmist  deplores  the  extinction  of  even 
this  reduced  form  of  prophecy.     As  to  the  immedi- 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  241 

ately  pre-Maccabean  time,  there  is  a  parallel  informa- 
tion to  the  same  effect:  2  Mace.  IV,  46;  IX,  27; 
XIV,  41). 

The  free  will  of  man  is  the  general  supposition  in  the 
Psalms,  and  in  some  of  them  it  is  especially  emphasized 
(XXXIV,  13;  LXXXI,  13).  Nevertheless,  some 
Psalmists  display  certain  waverings  which  we  know 
from  former  days:  God  is  petitioned  for  a  new  heart 
(LI,  12;  comp.  Ezekiel),  as  also  the  other  way:  to  lead 
the  unjust  from  sin  to  sin  (LXIX,  28,  comp.  Pharao 
and  the  sons  of  Eli).  One  Psalmist  gives,  perhaps, 
some  consideration  to  the  suggestion  that  the  unjust 
are  born  with  their  wickedness  (LVIII,  4;  comp. 
Is.  XLVIII,  8).  Another  Psalmist  tries  to  alleviate 
the  great  weight  of  human  responsibility  involved  in 
the  freedom  of  man's  will,  by  the  suggestion  (later 
developed  by  the  Talmudists)  that  God  disregards 
evil  thoughts  as  long  as  they  have  not  been  converted 
into  action,  while  he  pays  regard  to  and  answers  good 
thoughts  conceived  in  prayer  and  devotion  (LXVI, 
16-20).  And  also  in  Proverbs  the  idea  of  free  will  is 
the  general  supposition  (especially  emphasized  in 
XIX,  3),  but,  as  is  to  be  expected  in  gnomic  wisdom, 
the  practical  suggestion  is  advanced  that  the  will  of 
man  can,  and  should,  be  educated  to  choose  the  good 
(XX,  11  in  conjunction  with  XXII,  5,  6). 

It  is,  however,  the  principle  of  retribution  which 
occupies  the  center  of  interest  in  both  of  these  writ- 
ings. Almost  all  the  Psalms,  and  also  the  proverbs 
in  their  present  arrangement,  aim,  as  has  already 
been  pointed  out,  at  the  defense  of  justice.  It  is, 
therefore,  entirely  in  accordance  with  what  is  to  be 


242  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

expected,  if  we  find  in  these  two  collections  (of 
Psalms  and  proverbs,)  all  attempts  at  solution  of 
the  problem  known  to  us  from  the  older  sources,  in 
a  more  or  less  developed  form : 

The  end  of  the  just  is  good,  is  the  general  basic 
thought,  advanced  in  Psalms  and  Proverbs  against 
all  the  illusions  of  pretentious  reality  (especially  Ps. 
I,  3-6;  VII,  12f.;  XI,  5.6;  most  especially  XXXVIII, 
37,  38,  and  very  often;  Prov.  XII,  13;  XVI,  25:  the 
end  =  XXIII,  17.18  =  XXIV,  14. 

Responsibility  is  not  exclusively  individual,  there 
being  an  account  of  merit  and  sin  going  through  the 
generations  (Ps.  XVII,  14;  XXI,  11;  XXV,  12; 
XXXIV,  17;  XXXVII,  9.10;  22-28;  LII,  7;  CIII, 
17.18;  CIX,  8-15;  CXII,  2;  CXXVII,  3;  CXXVIII, 
12 ;  Prov.  XII,  5 ;  XIII,  22 ;  XIV,  1 1 ;  XVII,  5 ;  XX,  7  ; 
XXVIII,  8,  comp.  Job  XXVII,  17). 

Responsibility  is  also  national,  the  entire  nation 
may  suffer  for  the  sins  of  national  leaders  or  for  sins 
of  a  national  character,  and  also  this  national  re- 
sponsibility is  controlled  by  an  account  of  sin  and 
merit  going  through  the  ages.  This  is  illustrated 
most  persuasively  in  the  historic  Psalms.  In  this 
connection  these  Psalmist  would  refer  also  to  the 
greatness  of  the  creator,  and  to  the  messianic  idea — 
thoughts  apt  to  appease  the  inquisitiveness  of  man 
(cf.  especially  Ps.  LXVIII ;  LXXIV;  LXXVI-LXXXI ; 
LXXXIII;  LXXXVII;  LXXXIX;  XCV;  CIII;  CV; 
CVI;  CXXXV-CXXXVII).  In  Proverbs  we  miss 
the  emphasis  on  the  principle  of  national  responsi- 
bility. But  in  its  stead  we  find  the  abstract  political 
Sophia  which  in  the  ultimate  leans  upon  the  idea  of 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  243 


national  responsibility  (VIII,  14-21;  XI,    14;  XXV, 
2.3  and  all  passages  about  the  ideal  King). 

Then  again  there  is  the  solution  suggested  by 
Elihu  in  the  book  of  Job:  The  sufferings  of  the  just 
are  a  purification  of  the  afflicted;  the  divine  trial 
leads  man  to  self-trial  and  self-test  and,  subesquently, 
to  greater  efforts  in  the  fear  of  God  and  in  actions  of 
justice  (Ps.  LI;  XC,  3,  15;  XCIV,  12,  18;  CXVIII, 
17,  18;Prov.  Ill,  11,  12). 

Then,    the    righteous    is    contented    with    little: 

The  necessaries  of  life,  enjoyed  with  a  good  quiet 

conscience  and  in  the  realisation  of  being  in  harmony 

with  the  time-tested  principles  of  wisdom,  justice  and 

the  fear  of  God,  render  the  life  of  the  just  happier 

than  can  be  the  life  of  the  unjust  with  all  of  his 

possessions  and  apparent  joys  of  life  which,  in  reality, 

are  unable  to  din  his  inner  unrest  and  anxiety.     This 

idea,  expounded  by  Eliphaz  in  Job,  is  the  general 

note  in  Psalms  and  Proverbs,  at  times,  however,  it  is 

accentuated    with    special    stress    (Ps.    XVII,     14; 

XXIII,  1,2;  XXXVII,  If,  7.16.25;  XLIX,  6f.;  Prov. 

Ill,   23-25;   IV,  10-19;  XIII,   25;  XV,    16.17;  XVI, 

6.19;  XVII,  1;  XXIV,   19  (III,  31)  =  Ps.  XXXVII, 

1,  2).     Particularly    in     Proverbs    this    solution     is 

suggested  under  the  aspect  of  the  virtue  of  temperance 

(Sophrosyne),  one  of  the  basic  doctrines  of  the  book. 

Of  Plato  we  are  reminded  by  the  proverbs  against 

the  sexual  passion  as   the  greatest  passion  of  man 

(II,  16f;  V,  3f;  VI,  25f;  VII,  5f;  IX,  13f),  and  by 

those  agianst  wine  (XX,   1;  XXI,   17;  XXIII,  30; 

XXXI,    4;    comp.    Ps.    LXXV,   9;    LXXVIII,    65; 

CIV,  15  where  the  old  Jewish  attitude  is  taken  that 


244  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

wine  moderately  used  is  commendable.  Contra- 
dictory utterances  on  the  question  of  wine  there  are 
many  in  Bible,  Plato,  Graeco-Jewish  and  talmudic 
literatures.) 

The  thought  of  the  illusory  nature  of  possession 
and  enjoyment  in  this  world  leads  up  to  the  eschato- 
logical  solution  of  the  problem  of  justice. 

As  to  this  question  there  are  many  utterances  in 
the  Psalms  which  seemingly  point  in  different  direc- 
tions. Some  seem  to  negate  the  substantiality  of  the 
soul.  They  seem  to  posit  a  general  spiritual  sub- 
stance (Ruah)  which  comes  from  God  to  animate  the 
flesh,  or  the  dust,  for  a  certain  period  of  time,  but 
this  individuality  perishes  entirely  when  God  with- 
draws this  Ruah  (LXXVIII,  39;  CIII,  14-16;  CIV, 
29.30:  of  animals;  CXLIV,  4;  CXLVI,  4).  Other 
Psalms  speak  of  the  Sheol  where  man  (continues  some 
shadowy  life  after  death,  but)  does  not  praise  God 
and  does  not  call  His  name  (VI,  6;  XXX,  4.10; 
LXXXVIII,  4,  7,  11  12;  CXV,  27.)  However,  a 
thorough  investigation  into  these  utterances  in  the 
light  of  the  basic  disposition  of  these  God-intoxicated 
Psalmists,  and,  especially,  in  the  light  radiating  from 
the  vast  majority  of  the  passages  under  discussion, 
makes  it  clear,  that  the  above  passages  are  not  to  be 
taken  in  the  heretical,  or  at  least  skeptical,  sense 
indicated.  The  Sheol  is  to  (or,  at  any  rate  may)  be 
taken  in  the  connotation  suggested  by  the  majority 
of  the  passages  in  which  this  word  occurs:  Sheol  is 
the  place  where  the  unjust  undergo  punishment 
after  death.  There  they  are  banned  from  before  the 
countenance    of    God    (mark    Ps.    LXXXVIII,    4-7 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  245 

where  this  is  expressly  stated).  There  man  does  not 
praise  God  for  His  mercv,  because  there  divine 
mercy  does  not  prevail.  The  prayer  of  the  pious 
always  urges  that  his  soul  be  saved  from  that  Sheol 
(IX,  18;  XXVIII,  1;  XXXI,  18;  XLIX,  9,  15,  16; 
LV,  16,  24;  LXIIl,  10;  LXXXVIII,  4;  LXXXIX, 
49;  CXLIII,  7).  Likewise,  from  the  other  series  of 
passages  referred  to  above,  we  are  justified  to  accept, 
as  the  real  amount  of  the  utterances,  the  idea  of  the 
substantiality  of  the  Ruah ;  considering  the  suggested 
negation  of  the  individuality  of  the  human  Ruah  an 
extreme  self-humiliation  of  the  pious  Psalmist.  We 
are  entitled  to  this  interpretation,  because  the  vast 
majority  of  the  pertaining  passages  show  an  entirely 
different  face.  The  substantiality  of  the  soul  which , 
in  addition  to  Ruah,  is  sometimes  called  "heart," 
"soul,"  "glory"  (XXXV,  17:  wn'  "my  only  one"; 
CL,  6:  P1DSW,  comp.  Ps.  XVIII,  16  and  Job),  is  con- 
ceived of  as  remaining  in  its  individuality  also  after 
the  death  of  man.  And,  however  discreet  these 
Psalmists  are  in  language  and  picture  used  in  express- 
ing their  eschatological  hopes,  it  is  an  unquenchable 
longing  of  the  individual  soul  after  the  God  of  life, 
which  is  reflected  in  their  songs  and  prayers.  It  is 
but  this  what  they  mean  when  they  express  their 
confident  hope  for  dwelling  "in  the  lands  of  life," 
"bliss  in  Thy  Right  forever,"  "light  of  life,"  "light 
of  Thy  countenance,"  "fountain  of  life,"  "the  good," 
and  the  like  (XVI,  8-11;  XVII,  14,  15;  XXII,  27 
(30?);  XXV,  12;  XXVI,  13;  XXXI,  6;  XXXV,  17; 
XXXVI,  8-10;  XLII, 3 ;  L,  14;  LXIII,  2,  8;  LXXXIII, 
25,   26;  LXXXIV,  3;  CIII,   1-4.14-17;  CXVI,   7-9). 


246  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Of  course,  it  is  easily  possible,  and  even  very  likely, 
that  the  sentences  with  the  negative  attitude  de- 
scribed, originally  have  expressed  a  rather  pagan  view 
of  Sheol  and  a  denying  suggestion  as  to  spiritual 
individual  immortality.  But  the  pious  Psalmists 
who  employed  these  old  ready-made  proverbs  in  their 
songs  and  prayers,  undoubtedly  gave  them  the  in- 
terpretation suggested  here.  This  interpretation  is 
also  confirmed  by  contemporary  Graeco-Jewish  liter- 
ature. 

And  in  these  Psalms,  in  which  the  punishment  of 
the  unjust  in  the  Sheol  (later  "Gehinnom")  and  the 
reward  of  the  just  in  the  "light  of  Life"  (later  "Gan- 
Eden")  are  the  object  of  song  and  prayer,  this  doc- 
trine appears  as  the  last  trump  in  the  defense  of 
justice:  There  is  a  final  account  for  the  individual  in 
a  hereafter:  for  the  unjust  there  is  judgment  and 
(bodily)  punishment  in  the  Sheol,  for  the  just  there 
is  spiritual  bliss.  In  Proverbs  the  substantiality  of 
the  human  soul  is  once  hinted  at  (XX,  27),  of  the 
Sheol  it  is  expressly  stated  that  it  is  under  the  provi- 
dence of  God  (XV,  11),  and  the  whole  theory  of  the 
Psalms  of  the  judgment  of  the  unjust  in  the  Sheol 
and  the  "way  of  life  upward"  of  the  just,  appears 
confirmed  in  a  number  of  proverbs  (II,  18,  19;  V, 
5,  6;  VII,  27;  IX,  18;  XIV,  27.32:  1DVU?;  XV,  24 
(comp.  Koh.  Ill,  21);  XXI,  16). 

And  also  the  final  answer  in  the  book  of  Job,  the 
appeal  to  the  doctrine  of  monotheistic  creation ,  is  not 
missing  in  Psalms  and  Proverbs:  He  who  contem- 
plates over  the  work  of  creation  and,  in  the  sense  of 
the  cosmological  proof,  learns  from  it  the  reality  of 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  247 

the  creator  in  His  grace  and  mercy,  will  put  at  rest 
all  his  doubts  and  perplexities,  convinced  that  there 
is  a  final  equalizing  Justice  which  rules  the  world. 
The  ways  of  God  are  indeed  above  human  compre- 
hension. Who  knows?  Perhaps  there  is  in  store 
(perhaps  in  a  spiritual  soul-life  in  the  "Sanctuary") 
for  us  some  more  enlightenment  about  the  ways  of 
God  (Ps.  XLIX,  21;  LXXIII,  16,  17,  22;  XCII.  10; 
Prov.  Ill,  5-7,  19,  20;  VIII,  12-14,  22-31;  (XX,  17, 
21;  XXIV,  12,  13;)  XXV,  2,  3;  XXX,  2-6). 

The  individual  Psalmists  and  gnomic  poets 
dwelt  on  one  or  the  other  of  these  suggested  solutions 
of  the  problem  of  justice,  following  their  special 
inclinations  and  personal  religious  experiences,  but 
all  of  them  together  bear  witness  to  the  fact  that  ex- 
position and  discussion  of  the  problem  of  justice,  as 
conceived  by  the  author  of  the  book  of  Job,  has  found 
many  followers  in  the  schools  of  Psalmists  and 
gnomic  poets.  The  pious  Psalmists  and  the  poets  of 
practical  wisdom  have  converted  the  deep  thoughts 
of  the  book  of  Job,  not  so  much  accessible  to  the 
people  at  large,  into  small  currency,  as  it  were. 
And  this  furnishes  us  the  connecting  link  between 
the  theoretical  principles  and  the  higher  cultural 
forms  in  the  period  represented  by  the  books  of 
Psalms  and  Proverbs. 

Psalms  and  Proverbs  are  by  no  means  an  alto- 
gether new  genre  of  literature  in  our  period.  Many  a 
Psalm  undoubtedly  originated,  wholly  or  in  part,  in 
previous  times.  In  Job  there  appears  many  a  string 
of  proverbs  embodied  skillfully  into  the  trend  of 
discussion,   and   the  same  may  be  said  of   Psalms. 


248  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

A  comparison  of  the  parallels  in  Psalms  and  Proverbs 
referred  to  above,  with  each  other  and  with  their 
parallels  in  Job,  makes  it  clear  that  aphoristic  proverbs 
furnished  the  cells,  as  it  were,  out  of  which  Psalms 
and  Proverbs  were  strung  in  mosaic  construction; 
the  same  possibly  being  true  also  of  older  biblical 
songs.  New  in  our  period  are  two  features.  First, 
the  elaboration  of,  old  and  new,  proverbs  into  Psalms 
or  strings  of  proverbs,  is  the  prevalent  literary  genre 
of  our  period.  Secondly,  as  compared  with  Job, 
Psalms  and  Proverbs  are,  as  has  already  been  men- 
tioned, popular  literature.  Psalms  and  units  of 
proverbs  would  be  recited  or  sung  by  professional 
singers  in  public  places.  Especially  it  w-as  the 
Psalms  which  soon  reached  the  ranks  of  the  people 
who  soon  started  emploving  them  as  prayers.  Psalms 
and  Proverbs  proved  the  most  efficient  instrumen- 
tality for  disseminating  the  doctrines  of  Judaism 
among  the  people  at  large.  But  the  Psalms  are  to  be 
rated  above  the  Proverbs,  not  only  because  the 
Psalms,  with  their  fervent  religious  enthusiasm  and 
intense  religious  experience,  made  a  deeper  im- 
pression on  those  who  listened  to  them,  than  did  the 
proverbs,  but  also,  and  especially,  because  of  the 
great  historic  function  which  must  be  attributed  to 
the  Psalms:  The  Psalms  helped  prepare  that  time 
in  which  Jewish  religion  freed  itself  from  the  sacri- 
ficial ritual.  Most  likely  already  in  the  Babylonian 
exile,  at  the  time  when  the  Jewish  multitudes  were 
attracted  by  the  idolatrous  practices  in  their  sur- 
roundings, there  were  pious  Jews  who  satisfied  their 
religious  longing  by  reciting,  or  singing,  Psalms. 
And  this  movement,    to    install    prayer    instead    of 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  249 

bloody  sacrifices,  never  ceased  again  even  after  the 
erection  of  the  Second  Temple  and  the  restoration 
of  the  sacrificial  ritual.  The  Covenant  of  Esra,  the 
Book  on  which  it  was  based,  with  its  monotheistic 
doctrine  of  creation  and  its  rigorous  doctrine  of  at- 
tributes, influenced  the  minds  of  the  people  deeply 
and  lastingly.  Nowhere  do  we  find  the  complaint 
that  the  Jews  in  the  days  after  Esra  have  indulged  in 
idolatry  or  even  in  sacrificing  outside  the  Temple. 
It  is  in  Deuteronomy  where  we  find  the  first  endeavor 
at  centralization  which  meant  the  prohibition  of 
sacrificing  outside  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  the  center 
of  worship  in  Palestine  (This  explains  the  Temples 
in  Eelpha?itine  and  Helippolis.  By  a  less  rigid  in- 
terpretation these  places  could,  each  in  its  time, 
become  the  center  of  worship  for  Egypt,  without 
ceasing  to  recognize  Jerusalem  as  the  national 
center  and  the  place  of  highest  authority  in  matters 
national  and  religious). 

But,  as  many  another  reform  started  by  Deuter- 
onomy, the  centralization  of  the  sacrificial  cult  was 
not  realised  until  the  days  of  the  Esra-Covenant. 
And  so  it  developed  by  natural  necessitv  that  the 
Palestinian  Jews  living  in  the  "Province"  (the 
technical  name  for  all  Palestine  outside  Jerusalem) 
continued  the  institution  of  prayer  (as  a  substitute 
for  sacrifices)  even  after  the  erection  of  the  Second 
Temple.  In  this  they  were  aided  by  the  Psalmists, 
as  they  in  turn  have  encouraged  and  furthered  the 
development  of  Psalmodic  literature. 

And  here  we  touch  an  important  characteristic  of 
our  period.  In  the  Psalms  idolatry  in  Israel's  past 
(CVI,   35)   as  also  among  the  other  peoples  in   the 


250  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

present  (XCVI,  5;  XCVII,  7;  CXV,  5-8;  CXXXV, 
15-17),  is  spoken  of,  but  nowhere  is  there,  in  Psalms 
or  Proverbs,  any  trace  of  accusation  or  suspicion  that 
the  much  blamed  unjust  were  guilty  of  anything  in 
the  way  of  idolatry.  It  is,  evidently,  in  connection 
with  this  that  while  we  often  find,  in  Psalms  and 
Proverbs,  complaints  about  the  undue  luxuries  in- 
dulged in  by  the  unjust,  we  find  nothing  about  what 
would  disclose  the  position  of  Psalmists  and  gnomic 
poets  as  to  the  extent  of  the  validity  of  the  pro- 
hibition of  images  in  their  time.  This  question, 
evidently,  was  of  no  actual  interest  any  more.  The 
Second  Temple  in  its  imageless  equipment  marked 
the  admissible  measure  of  decorative  art,  which  in 
general  was  observed  by  the  masses  of  the  people. 
The  Hellenistically  inclined  unjust  tried  to  establish 
gymnasia  and  stadia,  but  nothing  of  an  outspoken 
idolatrous  character.  They  never  renounced  the 
Temple  and  its  worship.  On  the  contrary,  they  were 
ardent  in  the  bringing  of  copious  sacrifices.  It  was 
rather  the  Psalmists  and  gnomic  poets  who  declared 
their  sacrifices  worthless  and  abominable.  Now  the 
Psalmists  certainly  were  not  opposed  to  the  pre- 
scribed sacrificial  cult.  On  the  contrary,  the  sacri- 
ficial cult  is  upheld  not  only  in  Psalms  in  which  the 
national  idea  is  pressed  to  the  fore  (X,  16;  XLVIII; 
LXXVI;  LXXXIX,  4:  David  (comp.  ibid. 
21.50;  CXXII;  CXXXII);  CXXVII,  CXLIV,  7,  8; 
CXLVII,  19,  20),  but  also  in  Psalms  of  a  universal 
character  (XLVII;  LIX;  LXVI,  8;  LXVII:  mark 
Elohim  =  LXVIII,29-33  =  LXXXII,8;XCVI-XCIX, 
2;  CI,  1-3:  all  nations  should  bring  thank-offerings  to 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  251 

JHVH  and  recognize  Him  asElohim;  CXIII;  CXVII; 
CXXXVIII,  4).  No  thought  of  a  serious  opposition 
against  the  sacrificial  ritual  prescribed  in  the  written 
Torah  can  be  sustained  for  the  period  under  dis- 
cussion. In  many  Psalms  the  Torah  is  already 
exalted  as  a  closed  authoritative  document,  as 
the  exemplum  presens,  as  it  were,  of  a  higher  heavenly 
reality  (comp.  Ps.  XIX;  CXIX  a.  o.).  Moreover 
they  go  beyond  the  written  law  and  exalt  the  Sopheric 
institution  of  music  as  a  means  of  worship  in  and 
outside  the  Temple,  with  great  emphasis  (XL III,  4; 
XLVII,  6,  7;  XL1X,  5;  LVII,  9;  LXVIII,  26;  LXXI, 
22;  LXXXI,  2,  3;  XCII,  4;  XCVIII,  5,  6;  C,  1; 
CVIII,  3;  CXXXVII,  2,  4;  CXLVIl,  7;  CXLIX,  3; 
CL,  3-5;  comp.  bekrw  the  discussion  of  Chronicles). 
Nevertheless,  it  may  be  said  that  some  of  thePsalms 
oppose  the  sacrificial  cult  to  a  certain  extent.  First 
of  all  they  lay  much  stress  on  the  thought  of  the  older 
prophets  that  only  he  has  a  right  to  come  to  the 
sanctuary  or  to  set  his  foot  on  the  Mountain  of  the 
Lord  (in  order  to  bring  sacrifices!)  who  is  a  strict 
observer  of  the  ethical  laws  of  the  Torah  (Ps.  XV; 
XXIV).  Then,  too,  some  of  the  Psalmists  are  against 
the  sin-offering,  and,  in  further  pursuance  of  the 
attitude  taken  by  the  writer  of  the  Book  of  Jonah, 
they  are  rather  in  favor  of  thank-offerings  (in  contrast 
to  this  attitude,  deviating  as  it  does,  from  the  stand 
taken  by  the  Priestly  Code  in  the  question  of  retri- 
bution and  expiation,  we  find  in  some  Psalms  remi- 
niscences of  the  Khareth-mstitution:  XXXIV,  17; 
esp.  XXXVII,  9,  22,  28,  34,  38;  CI,  8;  CIX,  13,  15; 
comp.  Prov.  II,  22;  otherwise  Proverbs  are  entirely 


252  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

universalistic,  comp.  Job).  And,  finally,  some  of 
the  Psalmists  prefer  prayer  and  song  as  a  means  of 
Grace  to  bloody  sacrifices,  as  indeed  the  sacrificial 
worship  derives  its  worth  altogether  from  the  prayer 
concomitant  to  it  (Ps.  IV,  2;  V,  2-4  (comp.  LXXII, 
5);  XXVI,  6,  7;  XXVII,  6;  XXVIII,  2;  XXX,  5; 
XXXIV,  6;  (XXXVI,  7:  reminiscence  of  Jona, 
concluding  verse);  XXXIX,  13;  XL,  2-12  (!);  XLII, 
5-9;  XLIII,  3,  4;  XLIX,  8;  L  (!);  LI,  17-21  (!); 
LIV,  8;  LVI,  13;  LXI,  6-9;  LXIII,  3-6;  LXV,  2-5; 
LXVI,  13-20  (!);  LXVIII,  30-34;  LXIX,  14,  31,  32; 
LXXII,  5  (morning  and  evening  prayer? — comp. 
Dan.  VI,  11,  12:  three  times  daily,  which  is  evidently 
a  later  development);  LXXII,  9-15;  LXXVI,  12: 
LXXX,  5;LXXXIV,9-11;XCV,  2;C,  1;CII,  17-32: 
note  verse  19:  Prayer  is  to  be  established  as  an  in- 
stitution  for  later  generations;  CVI,  44;  CVI1,  21,  22 
(23-32:  the  situation  reminds  of  Jona!);  CIX,  7; 
CXVI,  12-19;  CX1X,  62,  147,  148  (V,  2-4;  LXXII,  5); 
CXXII,  1-4;CXXX,2-6(V,2-4;LXXII,5;CXXXIV, 
1);  CXXXVIII,  2;  CXLI,  1,  2;  Proverbs  XV,  8,29; 
XX,  25;  XXI,  3,  27;  XXIX,  4). 

We  touch  here  an  historic  formation  of  great 
magnitude  which  was  of  decisive  import  in  the 
development  of  Judaism  for  all  times  to  come: 

3.  Institution  of  Liturgy:  Confession  of  Faith. 

Prayer  as  such  is  no  new  phenomenon  in  our 
period.  Private  prayer,  of  course  in  conjunction 
with  a  sacrifice,  is  an  institution  common  to  many 
peoples  of  antiquity  (comp.  Is.  I,  15).  And  also 
certain    prescribed    prayers    for   sacrificial    functions, 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  253 

private  and  public,  go  back  to  an  early  period  (comp. 
Gesch,  d.  jued.  Philosophic  II,  1,  p.  239-240).  The 
new  feature  which  we  learn  from  the  Psalms,  is  the 
preponderance  of  prayer  over  sacrifice.  One  cause 
of  this  phenomenon  we  have  found  in  the  circumstance 
that  by  the  rigid  insistence  on  the  idea  of  centraliza- 
tion of  the  sacrificial  cult,  the  Palestinian  Jews  were 
gradually  led  to  consider  prayer  as  the  divine  service; 
a  movement  which  Tavored  the  development  of 
Psalmodic  literature,  as  it  in  turn  was  furthered  and 
fostered  by  this  very  flourish  of  the  eminently  religious 
literary  genre  of  Psalm  and  Song.  But  there  also 
were  other  factors  which  greatly  favored  the  develop- 
ment of  prayer  as  an  institution. 

The  new  redaction  of  the  Torah  obliterated  the 
distinct  position  of  those  theoretical  principles  which 
were  recognised  as  such  by  the  authoritative  repre- 
sentatives of  Judaism.  Authoritative  Judaism  could, 
as  has  already  been  pointed  out,  take  a  less  implac- 
able attitude  toward  the  doctrine  of  angels,  now  that 
the  monotheistic  theory  of  creation  has  deprived  it  of 
its  most  dangerous  sting.  And  yet,  this  doctrine  has 
remained  a  constant  menace  to  the  purity  of  the 
theoretical  principles  of  Judaism. 

The  conditions  of  the  time  called  for  an  institution 
through  which  the  positive  principles  of  Judaism 
would  be  distinguished  and  marked  as  such.  And 
also  some  influences  from  without  were  working  in 
the  same  direction.  In  the  Persian  period  the  prin- 
ciples of  Judaism  had  to  be  defended  against  the 
destructive  influences  of  Parsism,  just  as  in  the  Greek 
period  against  the  subversive  elements  of  Hellenism. 


254  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Indeed,  our  very  Psalms  have  been  such  a  defensive 
measure.  The  Psalms  are,  as  we  have  just  seen, 
prayers,  in  which  God  is  praised  and  petitioned  for 
help,  but  in  which  at  the  same  time  also  the  theoretical 
principles  of  Judaism  are  being  defended.  When, 
in  the  Temple,  on  the  occasion  of  sacrifices,  or  in 
private  prayer-meetings,  Psalms  were  recited  or 
sung,  these  recitals  and  songs  were  meant  also  as  a 
confession  of  faith  in  the  presence  of  the  congregation. 
And  it  could  not  take  long  before  the  authoritative 
representatives  of  Judaism  availed  themselves  of  the 
opportunity  offered  them  by  this  progressing  form  of 
devotion,  to  take  the  new  institution  under  official 
control  and  to  develop  it  with  a  conscious  effort  to 
make  it  serve  the  best  and  most  vital  interests  of 
Judaism.  The  idea  soon  suggested  itself  to  intro- 
duce, at  the  Temple  in  Jerusalem  as  well  as  in  the 
private  meetings  of  devotion  in  the  Province,  such 
prayers  and  songs  which  would  express  the  principles 
of  Judaism  in  a  more  systematic  and  exhaustive  way 
than  it  had  been  the  case  in  the  Psalms.  In  pursu- 
ance with  this  effort  it  was  natural  to  arrange  the 
recitals  and  songs  in  the  Temple  in  such  a  way  as  to 
exclude  from  the  Temple  all  prayers  and  Psalms 
which  possibly  express  views  declined  by  authori- 
tative Judaism,  as,  for  instance,  the  doctrine  of 
angels  (found  in  some  of  the  Psalms) .  In  the  Province 
it  was  sufficient  to  establish  a  certain  order  of 
prayers,  recitals  and  readings,  as  obligatory,  to  em- 
phasize certain  principles  as  the  authoritative  doc- 
trine of  Judaism,  and  thus  sufficiently  marking  all 
additional,  free,  selections  of  Psalms  and  readings  as 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  255 


not  authoritative.  In  the  Temple,  of  course,  every- 
thing had  to  be  under  authoritative  control.  There 
nothing  could  be  uttered  that  could  not  be  accentu- 
ated as  authoritative  doctrine. 

Thus  in  the  time  comprising  the  end  of  the  Persian 
and  the  beginning  of  the  Greek  periods,  there  has 
developed  the  fixed  institution  of  national-religious 
Liturgy  at  the  Temple  in  Jerusalem  and  in  the  prayer- 
meetings  in  the  Province,  and,  by  and  by,  also  in  the 
Diaspora  (in  the  Temple  and  the  private  homes  of 
prayer):     They    marked    certain    selections    of    the 
Torah  for  obligatory,  daily  or  periodical,  readings, 
and  composed  short  benedictions  and  prayers  to  be 
read  and  recited  at  the  Temple  in  Jerusalem  in  con- 
junction with  the  sacrifices,  and  in  the  private  houses 
of  worship  at  the  time  of  the  prescribed  daily  sacri- 
fices.    And  these  daily  prayers  and  recitals  were  so 
arranged  that  in  their  entirety  they  represented  the 
full    Creed    of    Jewish    religion.     For    Sabbaths    and 
festivals  there  was  an  added  scriptural  selection  ex- 
pressive of  the  significance  of  the  day  and  its  special 
ritual.     This  effort  to  accentuate  the  creed  of  Juda- 
ism, accounts  plausibly  for  the  interesting  and  in- 
structive fact  that  in  the  oldest  list  preserved  in  the 
Mishna   (and   contested  by  other  lists  contained  in 
other  talmudical  sources)  all  scriptural  selections  for 
recital  or  reading  were  taken  from  those  parts  of  the 
Torah  which  we  today  have  recognised  as  the  enlarged 
Priestly     Code    and     Deuteronomy.     It    was    this, 
evidently,    the   time   when    the   Torah    assumed    its 
final  proportions  of   today,   but  certain   parts  of   it 
were  deliberately  excluded  from   public    recognition. 


256  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

They  rather  selected  such  passages  which  they  wanted 
to  accentuate  as  expressive  of  the  essentials  of  Juda- 
ism. Moreover,  a  thorough  examination  of  the 
pertaining  sources,  in  Bible  and  Talmud,  establishes 
the  fact  that  at  the  Temple  in  Jerusalem  the  Torah 
in  its  present  volume  never  was  recognised  as  the 
authoritative  document  of  Judaism.  From  all  we 
can  see  the  inference  is  urged  upon  us  that  the  copy, 
or  copies,  o^f  the  Torah  preserved  in  the  Temple  up 
to  the  time  of  its  destruction  through  the  Romans, 
comprised  no  more  than  the  enlarged  Priestly  Code 
and  Deuteronomy  (comp.  to  the  preceding,  as  also 
to  the  following,  Tholdoth  I,  p.  126-144). 
The  "Order  of  the  Day"  in  the  Maccabean  period 
consisted  of  the  following  units: 

Benediction  of  Creation  (TIK  W),  Benediction 
of  Israel's  Selection  by  Revelation  (PQ"»  rOflK),  the 
Decalog,  the  Shema,  as  the  principle  of  Unity,  Weha- 
yah:  the  principle  of  Retribution,  and  Wayyomer: 
the  principle  of  free  will.  Then  followed  the  (later 
so  called)  "Three  First"  and  "Three  Last"  bene- 
dictions of  the  "Thephillah,"  or  "the  Eighteen 
Benedictions"  (likewise  a  later  designation,  after  the 
twelve  "intermediate  benedictions"  had  been,  by 
and  by,  inserted  between  the  "First  three"  and  the 
"Last  three."  Later  another,  the  thirteenth,  middle- 
benediction  was  added,  the  benediction  against  the 
heretics).  The  "three  first"  were  called:  A  both 
(Fathers)  expressive  of  the  idea  of  the  Covenant  with 
the  Patriarchs  on  the  ground  of  the  Thirteen  Attri- 
butes (on  which  later  also  the  "intermediate  bene- 
dictions" were   built);  Geburoth    (divine   might)    and 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  257 

Kedushoth  (Holiness),  which,  together  with  Aboth, 
convey  a  well  thought-out  definition  of  the  Jewish 
God-conception.  The  "three  last"  were  Abodah 
(Worship),  a  prayer  for  the  favorable  acceptance  of 
the  sacrifices  as  a  means  of  achieving  divine  grace; 
Hoda'ah  (Thanks),  prayer  of  thanks  and  confession 
of  faith  in  divine  providence;  and  finally  Birchath 
Chohanim:  the  Priestly  Blessing  with  the  key-note 
of  Shalom.  Thus  the  Thephilla  unites  the  old 
formula  of  attributes  with  the  new  (first  half  of 
Thephilla:  Thirteen;  second  half:  Priestly  Blessing; 
and  also  the  "intermediary  Benedictions"  may  be 
analyzed  along  the  same  line).  In  the  Maamadoth 
(Standing  Orders,  introduced  later  in  our  period, 
comprising  twenty-four  lay  organizations  in  as  many 
district-towns  in  Palestine,  corresponding  to  the 
twenty-four  priest  and  Levitical  organizations  in 
Jerusalem,  called  Mishmaroth:  Watches)  they  would 
add  every  day,  at  the  time  of  the  Morning-offering 
in  the  Temple,  the  corresponding  section  of  the  story 
of  creation  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  To  rah,  so 
accentuating  the  belief  in  God  as  Creator. 

Thus  the  theoretical  principles  of  Judaism  were 
formulated  and  emphasized,  and  this  was  done  in 
the  spirit  of  the  old  compromise  between  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Jeremian  school  and  those  doctrines  of 
their  opponents  which,  though  opposed  by  some 
adherents  of  the  Jeremian  school  for  some  special 
reasons  evolved  out  of  concomitant  historical  develop- 
ments, could  well  be  harmonized  with  those  principles. 
In  brotherly  peace  alongside  each  other  rest  in  this 
confession   of  faith   the  once  opposing  doctrines  of 


258  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

ethical  holiness  and  cosmological  creative  power  in 
the  definition  of  God,  as  also  the  Thirteen  and  the 
Priestly  Blessing 

The  daily  prayers  of  those  days  represent  the 
result  of  the  development  of  the  teachings  of  the 
prophets  in  the  highest  degree  of  philosophic  purity. 
It  is  the  essential  principles  of  Judaism  which  were 
formulated  and  accentuated  in  those  prayers  and 
recitals.  The  theory  of  angels  was  excluded,  as  also 
those  later  formulated  and  sanctioned  doctrines 
which  we  call  "historical  dogmas'  of  Judaism.  In 
the  chronological  order  of  their  later  sanction  as 
dogmas,  they  are:  Bodily  Resurrection,  Spiritual 
Immortality  in  the  sense  of  Retribution  after  death, 
Personal  Messiah,  "Thora  from  Heaven,"  meaning 
the  literal  inspiration  of  the  Torah,  and,  finally,  the 
binding  power  of  Oral  Tradition.  The  daily  prayer, 
as  an  instrument  of  confession  of  faith,  was  destined 
to  embody  in  the  future  the  doct/ine  of  angels  as 
well  as  all  the  historical  dogmas  just  mentioned. 
This  was  done  partly  by  enlarging  the,  originally 
very  short,  benedictions  and  prayers,  and  partly  by 
added  benedictions  and  prayers  some  of  which  were 
introduced  in  early  Tannaitic,  and  still  later,  times. 
The  dogma  of  Resurrection  found  its  place  in  the 
benedictions  of  Geburoth,  that  of  angels  in  Kedushoth 
(and  elsewhere),  and  that  of  Messiah  in  the  benediction 
of  Geulah  (Redemption)  between  Shema  and  The- 
phillah  (and  also  in  the  "intermediary  benedictions"). 
The  dogma  of  Immortality  has  (except  for  very  late 
additions)  found  no  direct  expression  in  the  "Order 
of  the  Day,"  for  definite  reasons  (nearly  the  same  as 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  259 

in  olden  times:  the  fear  to  encourage  the  people  in 
their  desire  to  establish  relations  with  the  dead), 
but,  it  was  discreetly  included  in  the  dogma  of 
Resurrection  (comp.  Tholdoth  and  below).  The 
dogma  of  the  "Torah  from  Heaven"  has  found  ac- 
centuation in  a  negative  way:  At  the  time  when 
Christian  Antinomism  declared  the  ritual  law 
abolished,  even  at  the  time  when,  as  a  measure 
against  just  this  antinomistic  movement,  the  dogma 
of  "To rah  from  Heaven"  was  formulated  and  sanc- 
tioned (comp.  Mishna  Synh  XI,  1),  the  Decalog  was 
removed  from  the  "Order  of  the  Day,"  so  as  not  to 
give  support  to  the  antinomistic  doctrine  that  only 
the  laws  covered  by  the  authority  of  the  Decalog  are 
binding,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  ritual  laws.  The 
positive  expression  for  this  dogma  is  contained  in  the 
general  conception  of  "Torah"  as  indicated  in  some 
of  the  prayers,  notably  in  Ahabha  Rabbah  and  in  the 
benedictions  before  and  after  the  reading  from  the 
Torah.  The  dogma  of  Oral  Tradition,  in  conception 
and  formulation  incidental  to  the  dogma  of  "Torah 
from  Heaven,"  has  found  its  expression  in  the 
So pherim  Benediction  (Al  hat-Tzaddikim). 

The  development  just  sketched  has,  it  is  true, 
not  entered  into  the  visible  horizon  of  historic  actu- 
ality until  the  post-biblical  period,  but  the  beginnings 
of  that  development  go  back,  as  already  preceived 
in  the  preceding,  to  the  late  biblical  period,  and  took 
place  in  intimate  interrelation  with  late  products  of 
biblical  literature.  And  just  as  the  Psalms,  extending 
as  they  do  over  the  entire  period  under  discussion, 
have   proved   suitable   instrumentality   for   the  pres- 


260  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

entation  of  the  introduction  of  the  "Order  of  the 
Day"  and  its  function  out  of  the  conditions  of  the 
time,  so  will  the  biblical  books  yet  to  be  discussed, 
and  which  characterize  the  very  end  of  the  biblical 
period,  furnish  us  a  most  suitable  instrument  for  the 
presentation  of  the,  above  sketched,  later  dogmatical 
development  of  prayer  as  confession  of  faith,  and 
to  understand  it  out  of  the  spiritual  currents  of 
late-biblical  times.  This  method  will  prove  most 
handy  for  conception  and  presentation  of  the  spiritual 
and  cultural  currents  at  the  end  of  the  biblical  period 
out  of  their  essential  and,  for  the  future  development, 
most  decisive  witnesses  and  documents.  The  his- 
torical dogmas  stand  to  the  essential  ones  in  the  same 
relation  as  the  oral  law  to  the  Torah.  Indeed,  the 
historical  dogmas  are  quasi  the  oral  principles  of 
Judaism,  while  the  essential  dogmas  are  quasi  its 
written  principles,  inasmuch  as  they  represent  the 
very  contents  of  the  teachings  of  the  prophets. 

Thus  our  way  of  looking  at  the  matter  brings  us 
in  intimate  touch  with  the  very  well-spring  where 
post-biblical  Judaism  emanates  from  the  biblical 
spirit.  We  have  struck  the  parting  of  the  ways: 
We  have  left  for  some  while  already  the  characteristic 
path  of  development  of  biblical  Judaism,  and  are 
now  engaged  in  orienting  ourselves  in  an  outlook 
upon  two  new  paths,  in  which  the  old  undivided  path 
has  split  up:  the  Alexandria?!,  path  and  the  Talmudic 
path,  reaching  out  still  further  with  an  outlook  into 
a  more  remote  future: 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  261 


4.   Chronicles  (inclusive  of  Esra  and  Nehemia)  and 
Daniel. 

The  book  of  Daniel  in  its  present  form  is  a  product 
of  the  immediately  pre-Maccabean  time,  the  time  of 
the  Syrian  oppression  preceding  the  Maccabean  War. 
Nevertheless  there  is  hardly  room  for  any  reasonable 
doubt  that  those  sections  of  the  book  which  treat 
of  the  history  of  the  Jews  in  the  exile,  are  based  on 
elements  of  older  literary  documents.  The  story  of 
Daniel  and  his  three  friends  fill  out  that  gap  which 
we  perceive  in  Chronicles  between  destruction  and 
restoration  of  Jerusalem  (2  Chronicles,  XXXVI, 
20-22).  Chronologically  the  books  of  Chronicles, 
Daniel,  Esther,  Esra  and  Nehemia  present  history  and 
pre-history  of  the  Jews  from  Adam  to  the  Covenant 
of  Esra  in  broad  outlines.  This  is  the  avowed  purpose 
of  the  writers  of  these  books.  Critically  read,  the 
book  of  Chronicles  (inclusive  of  Esra  and  Nehemia) 
furnishes  us  valuable  information  about  the  time  in- 
tervening between  the  Esra-Covenant  and  the  com- 
position of  the  book.  The  date  of  Chronicles  cannot 
be  fixed  with  any  degree  of  exactness,  but  it  is  quite 
certain  that  the  final  redaction  of  the  book  was 
influenced  by  Greek  thought,  preceding,  however, 
the  Maccabean  War  by  a  few  decades.  This  state 
of  affairs  suggest  the  joint  treatment  of  the  books 
Chronicles  and  Daniel,  so  as  to  use  them  as  docu- 
ments for  the  time  preceding  the  Syrian  oppression, 
and  to  consult  the  later  elements  of  the  book  of 
Daniel  as  documents  for  even  the  time  of  the  Syrian 
oppression.     This   picture   would    not   be   complete, 


262  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

unless  we  consult  also  the  book  of  Koheleth  whose 
date  most  likely  is  the  time  immediately  preceding 
that  of  the  Syrian  oppression,  the  time  of  the  Hellen- 
istic movement.  Thus  Koheleth  seems  to  be  older 
than  Daniel  in  its  final  redaction,  yet  because  of  its 
older  elements  the  book  of  Daniel  must  be  treated 
first. 

In  Chronicles  whose  author  draws  on  various 
old  sources  (cf.  above),  one  perceives  the  mixed 
origin  of  the  people  of  Israel  much  more  definitely 
than  in  the  other  historical  books  of  the  Bible.  The 
process  of  birth  of  the  nation  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  definitely  completed  even  as  late  as  the  time  of 
David  and  other  kings  of  his  dynasty  (cf.  the  first 
chapters  of  the  book,  notably  VI,  41;  V,  17;  IX,  1; 
XI,  1;  comp.  2  Chr.  VII,  7  and  Esra  IV,  3;  VI,  18; 
VIII,  35).  The  Chronist  places  the  House  of  David 
in  the  center  of  Jewish  history.  The  tribe  of  Judah 
with  the  house  of  David  was  the  point  of  crystalliza- 
tion around  which  the  final  ethnical  formation  of  the 
Jewish  nation  solidified  into  shape.  The  relation 
between  the  interest  in  the  existence  of  Old- Israel, 
and  the  hope  for  a  final  re-union  of  Israel  and  Juda, 
on  the  one  side,  and  between  the  inclination  to  revive 
and  to  strengthen  the  belief  in  angels  and  the  sundry 
objectionable  doctrines  in  its  wake,  on  the  other  side, 
has  already  been  referred  to  (cf.  Ezekiel).  These 
tendencies,  suppressed  in  the  time  of  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Esra-Covenant,  revived  later,  and,  as 
has  been  presented  above,  led  up  to  the  new,  and 
final,  redaction  of  the  Torah.  Now  it  is  this  spirit 
of  reaction  which  appears  revivified  in   Chronicles, 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  263 

the  spirit  of  the  last  compromise,  as  mirrored  in  the 
Torah  in  its  present  shape  and  volume : 

The  God-conception  of  Chronicles  is  the  ethico- 
cosmological,  a  combination  of  JE,  Deuteronomy  and 
Priestly  Code,  but  with  a  certain  hue  radiating  from 
the  Platonic  thought  of  the  three  cardinal  virtues  as 
the  sum  total  of  all  active  attributes  (cf.  1  Chr. 
XXVIII,  9;  XXIX,  11-12:  definition  of  God  with  a 
Platonic  shading:  2  Chr.  I,  10  (the  Platonic  element 
clearly  dsitinguishable  when  compared  with  1  Ki. 
111,9);  II,  5= VI,  18,  30;  XVI,  9;  XXXII,  8;  Esra 
V,  11,  12;  VI,  9,  10;  comp.  Dan.  II,  11-18-23;  IV, 
5,  15,  31;  V,  11;  VI,  21).  But  the  reactionary  in- 
fluence of  Babylonian-Persian  (and  partly  also  of 
Greek)  culture  makes  itself  felt  in  the  revivification 
of  the  doctrine  of  angels  as  represented  in  Chronicles 
and  Daniel.  True,  Chronicles  draws  on  old  sources, 
but  the  fact  that  the  author  while  using  the  old 
sources  did  not  care  to  eliminate  the  passages  about 
the  angels — this  fact  in  itself  makes  him  an  adherent 
of  that  doctrine.  But  in  addition  to  that  we  find 
that  he  sometimes  uses  more  intense  colors  in  the 
presentation  of  angels  than  his  sources.  In  the 
report  of  the  plague  in  the  time  of  David  (1  Chr. 
ch.  XXI)  the  attribute  of  Wrath  (*)K)  appears  more 
personified  than  in  its  parallel  in  the  book  of  Samuel 
(2  Sam.  ch.  XXIV).  With  regard  to  the  Cherubs  he 
not  only  embodies  in  his  book  the  account  from  the 
book  of  Kings  (2  Chr.,  Ill,  10-14),  but  reports  in 
addition  about  a  vision  in  which  David  saw  the 
Sanctuary  in  the  Idea,  and  on  this  occasion  he  marks 
the  Cherubs  as  the  Idea  of  Mercabah  (1  Chr.  XXVIII, 


264  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

18,  19;  comp.  Ezekiel).  Now  in  the  Second  Temple 
there  were  no  Cherubs,  this  strong  emphasis  is, 
therefore,  to  be  taken  as  the  endeavor  to  further  the 
cause  of  a  hopeless  postulate,  defended  again  and 
again  by  the  numerous  adherents  of  the  doctrine  of 
angels,  but  just  as  persistently  repressed  by  the 
authoritative  representatives. 

In  the  book  of  Daniel  the  old  doctrine  of  angels 
appears  more  elaborate  and  more  systematically 
developed.  We  find  here  not  only  the  new  feature 
of  names  of  angels  (Gabriel  and  Michael),  to  which 
there  is  no  parallel  in  the  rest  of  the  Bible  (cf.  above, 
first  chapter),  but  also  an  actual  political  organization 
of  the  hosts  of  heaven.  Each  (political)  nation  has 
its  representative  in  heaven.  Wars  between  the 
nations,  victory  and  defeat,  are  decreed  in  the  Counsel 
of  God  with  His  angels,  where  the  heavenly  repre- 
sentatives of  the  nations  try  to  protect  the  charges 
entrusted  to  them.  This  points  to  Babylonian- 
Persian  influence,  but  one  is  inclined  to  think  in  this 
connection  of  the  parallel  heavenly  organization  in 
the  Iliad.  And  also  here  there  is  a  marked  revivi- 
fication of  the  Mercabah  (Dan.  VII,  9,  10).  From 
here  a  track  leads  (over  Graeco-Jewish  and  talmudic 
developments)  to  the  embodying  of  the  doctrine  of 
angels  into  the  "Order  of  the  Day." 

Also  in  the  conception  of  prophecy,  from  of  old 
in  close  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  angels,  we 
indubitably  perceive  a  certain  reactionary  develop- 
ment. In  Chronicles  this  is  expressed  by  elements 
drawn  from  older  sources.  More  intense  is  the  re- 
actionary spirit  in  Daniel  where  prophetic  visions  are 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  265 

equipped  with  all  the  mythological  features  known 
from  early  pre-Deuteronomic  times,  such  as  dreams 
and  angels  as  a  means  of  revelation. 

In  the  wake  of  the  revived  doctrine  of  angels 
there  appear  also  some  waverings  in  the  doctrine  of 
free  will.  As  in  the  old  pre-Deuteronomic  sources 
we  find  also  in  Chronicles,  alongside  of  the  general 
supposition  of  man's  will  being  free,  certain  utter- 
ances tending  to  restrict  freedom  of  will.  And 
utterances  of  that  kind  we  find  not  only  in  passages 
drawn  from  older  parts  of  the  Bible  (2  Chr.  X,  15; 
XVIII,  19),  but  also  in  additions  which  the  Chronist 
may  have  drawn  from  other  sources,  but  which  most 
likely  are  amplifying  explanations  of  his  own  (2 
Chr.  XXV,  16;  XXXII,  31;  XXXV,  21,  22). 

In  the  doctrine  of  retribution  as  a  theoretical 
principle  we  find  in  Chronicles  nothing  beyond  the 
general  idea  of  God's  guidance  in  History.  Very 
interesting,  though,  is  the  frankness  in  the  treatment 
of  the  question  in  Esra,  VIII,  21-24:  Esra  would  feel 
ashamed  to  ask  the  king  for  an  escort,  as  he  had  told 
him  "The  hand  of  our  God  is  over  all  those  that 
seek  Him  for  their  welfare,  but  His  might  and  His 
wrath  over  those  who  forsake  Him!"  And  so  they 
prayed  to  God,  and  God  answered  them.  Evidently, 
they  were  not  unaware  of  the  fact  that  reality  often 
refuses  to  live  up  to  the  best  doctrine,  and  so  they 
considered  asking  the  king  for  an  escort.  Upon 
reconsideration,  however,  they  found  that  asking  the 
king  for  protection  on  their  way  to  fulfill  the  great 
mission  of  Restoration  would  express  distrust  in 
their  own  doctrine  of  God  as  the  guide  of  History  in 


266  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


whose  name  they  are  about  to  undertake  that  great 
work.  And  so  they  prayed  to  God,  in  accordance 
with  their  doctrine.  And  their  prayer  was  successful, 
their  doctrine  triumphed. 

More  elaborate  is  the  discussion  of  the  principles 
of  retribution  in  the  book  of  Daniel,  notably  in  those 
elements  of  it  which  mirror  the  strong  eschatological 
current  in  the  days  immediately  preceding  the  Mac- 
cabean  War.  But  before  going  into  this  question 
we  will  discuss  those  elements  in  Chronicles  which 
permit  us  a  deeper  insight  into  the  development  of 
the  higher  cultural  forms  of  life  in  the  pre-Maccabean 
period.  And,  incidentally,  we  will  strike  the  very 
roots  of  the  principle  of  Oral  Tradition  as  it  evolved 
from  the  historic  conditions  of  that  time. 

The  spirit  of  the  times  as  reflected  in  Chronicles 
is  a  blend  of  the  old  mythological  tendencies  and 
rigid,  intellectually  tuned,  obedience  to  the  law, 
which  we  know  from  the  Priestly  Code.  Obedience 
to  the  law  was  then  a  matter  of  course.  Nobody 
in  those  pre-Hellenistic  days  could  think  of  under- 
taking anything  forbidden  by  the  law.  At  the  same 
time,  however,  the  reawakened  mythical  tendencies 
called  for  means  of  activation  and  energization.  The 
more  rigid  the  determination  to  abide  by  the  law,  the 
more  urgent  was  the  need  for  an  outlet  for  the  new 
energy  produced  by  those  reawakened  tendencies. 
There  were  two  ways:  First,  they  conceived  the  past 
in  mythological  equipment  to  the  extent  limited  only 
by  the  possibility  to  still  harmonize  it  with  the  un- 
yielding law.  Secondly,  they  tried  to  realize  in 
practical  religious  and  cultural  life  as  much  of  their 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  267 

theoretical  postulates  as  they  could  wrest  from  the 
authoritative  representatives  of  Judaism  of  that 
time.  With  respect  to  practical  questions  the  ad- 
herents of  the  Ezekiel  School  had,  of  course,  to 
impose  upon  themselves  more  restraint  than  in  the 
historical  conceptions  in  their  literary  activity.  Of 
the  past,  of  the  Temple  of  Solomon,  the  Chronist 
knows  much  about  Cherubs  and  Mercabah.  But 
when  he  comes  down  to  his  own  time,  to  the  Second 
Temple,  he  knows  nothing  of  the  kind.  No  doubt, 
the  party  to  which  the  Chronist  swore  allegiance, 
would  have  desired  very  much  to  have  in  the  Temple 
not  only  two  Cherubs  but  rather  a  complete  Mercabah 
(cf.  Ezekiel),  but  they  did  not  dare  make  of  such  a 
postulate  an  actual  issue.  The  prohibition  of  images 
had  been  recognized  not  only  in  the  Temple  but  also 
in  private  life.  For  his  own  time  the  Chronist  does 
postulate  no  images  whatsoever  in  the  Temple.  The 
only  practical  postulate  which  the  party  he  represents 
possibly  had  advanced,  was  that  of  reintroducing 
the  Oracle,  the  "Urim  ve-Thumim."  But  conditions 
were  such  that  this  postulate,  too,  had  to  be  with- 
drawn from  actual  consideration  at  the  time  being 
and  to  be  postponed,  as  it  were,  in  the  hope  it  may 
have  a  better  chance  in  some  future  time  (Esra  II, 
62,  63;  Neh.  VII,  64,  65;  cf.  Tholdoth  I,  p.  107). 
We  know  that  the  cherished  hope  for  reinstallment 
of  the  Urim  ve-Thumin  never  realised.  The  Law 
was  reigning  supreme. 

It  was  not  until  the  time  of  penetration  of  Greek 
thought  and  culture  into  Jewish  life  that,  first  in  the 
Temple  and  then  also  in  private  life,  a  tendency  has 


268  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

reached  the  surface  which  we  may  designate  as  the 
reawakened  desire  for  plastic  arts  as  a  means  of 
expression  for  religious  and  other  idealistic  senti- 
ments. But  these  unlawful  tendencies  are  a  later 
development.  The  time  preceding  the  Chronist  as 
well  as  his  own  time  (even  the  time  of  the  final 
redactor  of  the  book)  was  not  yet  favorable  to  the 
reawakened  mythical  tendencies.  The  intensified 
longings  for  artistic  religious  expression  in  wake  of 
those  tendencies  had  to  activate  themselves  as  best 
they  could  within  the  narrow  confines  of  the  law. 
The  new  artistic  interest  found  an  outlet  in  decorative 
art,  literature,  and  music.  How  far  these  higher 
cultural  forms  dominated  in  private  life,  the  scanty 
information  in  the  literature  of  the  age  (Psalms, 
Proverbs,  and,  notably,  Koheleth)  hardly  permits 
any  definite  judgment.  In  the  field  of  religion  our 
period  easily  signifies  the  height  of  development  in 
the  sphere  of  unforbidden  art.  The  wonderful 
stories  about  the  artistic  splendor  of  the  Second 
Temple  (preserved  in  Graeco-Jewish  and  talmudic 
literatures)  refer  most  likely,  and  exclusively,  to  the 
reconstruction  of  Herod.  It  is,  nevertheless,  safe 
to  assume  that  the  spirit  of  the  Priestly  Code  which 
favored  a  certain  amount  of  decorative  art  in  the 
description  of  the  Tabernacle  in  the  wilderness,  pre- 
vailed to  some  extent  on  the  occasion  of  the  equip- 
ment of  the  Second  Temple. 

Much  more  abundant,  however,  is  the  information 
preserved  in  the  literature  of  our  period  about  the 
development  of  religious  poetry  and  religious  music. 
In  that  period  this  question  was  closely  interrelated 
with  the  question  of  the  sacrificial  ritual : 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  269 

As  to  religious  poetry  this  interrelation  disclosed 
itself  to  us  in  the  preceding  discussion  of  the  Psalms. 
But  Chronicles  permits  us  a  still  deeper  insight  into 
this  interrelation,  in  that  it  furnishes  us  the  additional 
information  about  the  important  part  religious  music 
played  in  that  development.  Moreover,  it  forces 
the  development  of  music  into  the  fore  and  concen- 
trates our  interest  on  it  as  on  the  key  to  comprehend- 
ing the  whole  complicated  situation.  The  Chronist, 
expectedly,  stands  firm  on  the  ground  of  the  law, 
in  all  other  questions  as  well  as  in  questions  of  the 
sacrificial  ritual.  He  is  not  engaged  in  any  mes- 
sianic =universalistic  thoughts.  He  belongs  to  those 
who  implacably  resisted  intermarriage  (in  all  passages 
where  he  accentuates  the  racial  purity  of  the  patri- 
archs, notably  in  the  passages  about  the  removal 
of  the  foreign  wives:  Esra  IX,  10;  Neh.  IX,  1-3;  X, 
31;  XIII,  23-30).  In  Chronicles  we  already  perceive 
the  flutterings  of  that  strong  particularistic-legalistic 
spirit,  which  predominates  later,  even  in  Graeco- 
Jewish  propagandists  literature,  but  most  strongly 
in  talmudic  literature  (eventhough  in  these  litera- 
tures, too,  profound  variations  of  old  prophetic 
universalism  may  be  found).  Of  any  opposition 
against  the  sacrificial  cult  on  the  part  of  the  Chronist 
or  even  against  a  certain  class  of  sacrifices,  as  for 
instance  in  Jona  and  Psalms,  there  cannot  be  the 
slightest  suspicion  whatsoever.  In  this  he  stands 
wholly  and  unswervingly  on  the  ground  of  the  law 
(comp.  Esra:  VII,  26:  the  compromise  between  the 
institutions  of  judicial  execution  and  Khareth — 
yvn&?).     And    if    we    do    find    in    Chronicles   some 


270  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

deviations  in  details  of  ritual,  and  there  are  such, 
it  is  always  a  case  of  interpretation  of  some  law  tend- 
ing toward  more  rigid  exclusiveness  and  more  special 
privileges  for  the  priests.  A  case  in  point  is  the 
Passah.  Originally  the  Passah  was  a  house-offering 
without  distinction  of  place  or  land.  Then  it  was 
restricted  to  the  houses  in  the  place  of  the  Sanctuary 
in  Palestine,  applying  most  likely  to  any  large  dis- 
trict-Bamah.  Still  later  (most  likely  in  Deuter- 
onomic  times)  Jerusalem  was  the  only  place  where 
the  Passah  could  be  offered.  Of  the  injunction, 
however,  that  the  Passah  should  be  brought  to  the 
Temple  there  is  nothing  in  older  biblical  literature. 
The  Chronist  is  the  first  (and,  of  course,  also  the 
last)  biblical  author  with  whom  we  find  the  Passah 
as  a  Temple-offering.  Clearly,  this  is  the  reflex  of 
the  then  incipient  and  authoritatively  favored  cus- 
tom of  bringing  the  Passah  to  the  Temple.  But  the 
Chronist  goes  here  beyond  what  is  justified  even  by 
the  custom  of  those  days.  In  the  presentation  of 
the  matter  in  Chronicles  it  appears  that  all  functions 
connected  with  the  Passah  were  the  exclusive  pre- 
rogative of  the  priests.  It  is,  however,  a  matter  of 
record  that  as  late  as  in  the  time  of  Philo  (born  about 
20  B.  C.)  the  Passah  was  considered  as  a  lay-offering 
to  be  handled  by  Israelites  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
priests.  And  even  if  we  would  not  rely  upon  the 
testimony  of  Philo,  there  still  remains  the  tradition 
accredited  in  talmudic  literature  that  the  slaughter- 
ing of  the  Passah  had  to  be  carried  out  by  Israelites, 
not  by  priests  (a  sacrificial  function  to  which  Israelites 
were    generally    admitted).     A    comparison    of    this 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  271 

record  of  fact  with  what  we  find  in  Chronicles,  makes 
it  clear  that  in  Chronicles  we  have  before  us  a  rem- 
anant  of  the  literary  activity  by  which  a  much  de- 
sired additional  priestly  privilege  was  to  be  estab- 
lished, but  which  did  not  meet  with  success  (cf.  Geseh, 
d.  jued.  Philosophic  II,  I,  p.  209-216;  there  it  was 
shown  that  partly  at  least  Philo's  contention  is  borne 
out  also  in  what  we  find  about  the  matter  in  the 
Talmud).  Thus  there  is  certainly  not  the  remotest 
thought  of  opposition  against  any  priestly  law  on 
the  part  of  the  Chronist.  Indeed  he  is  considered 
by  all  biblical  scholars  as  a  staunch  promoter  of 
priesthood  and  Levites.  And  this  unquestionably 
correct  view  is  based  mainly  on  the  fact  that  in  his 
accounts  of  political  functions  in  history  the  Chronist 
would  bring  in  priests  and  Levites  more  frequently 
than  do  other  biblical  historians.  On  every  suitable, 
and  often  also  unsuitable,  occasion  he  knows  to  relate 
of,  elsewhere  never  mentioned,  functions  and  proces- 
sions at  which  the  priests  would  offer  sacrifices  and 
the  Levites  would  assist  them  with  their  music,  sing- 
ing Psalms  to  the  accompaniment  of  highly  devel- 
oped musical  instruments. 

However,  looking  a  little  beneath  the  surface  we 
will  soon  find  that  the  Chronist  here,  much  against 
his  avowed  intention,  but  forced  by  the  inherent 
force  of  truth,  relates  of  a  movement  which  really 
meant  the  weakening  of  the  whole  institution  of 
sacrifices,  and  which  led  ultimately  to  its  complete 
abolition.  What  we  have  found  in  the  discussion 
of  the  Psalms  appears  here  more  intensely  illumined. 
In  addition   to   the   movent   factors   discussed  there, 


272  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

another  decisive  motive  contributes  to  the  shaping 
of  things.  The  anti-artistic  tendencies  of  the  Jere- 
mian  school  were  given  up  even  by  the  party  of  the 
Priestly  Code  within  the  confines  of  what  was  still 
admissible  under  formal  obedience  to  the  prohibition 
of  images.  With  this  limitation,  Ezekiel's  enthus- 
iasm for  artistic  expression  of  religious  experience 
and  sentiment  won  a  great  historical  victory-  There 
was  a  deep  yearning  for  a  form  of  service  in  which  the 
artistic  receptivity  of  the  higher  senses  was  called 
upon  to  participate.  The  sacrificial  cult  in  itself  did  not 
satisfy  the  spiritual  demands  of  the  age  any  more, 
as  we  have  seen  by  the  various  forms  of  opposition 
to  sacrifices  as  a  means  of  achieving  grace  (comp. 
the  book  of  Jona,  end:  Prayer,  as  an  expression  of 
repentance,  and  not  sacrifice,  was  the  means  by  which 
the  Ninivites  achieved  grace).  To  think  of  removing 
the  sacrificial  worship  was,  naturally,  entirely  out  of 
the  question.  It  was  an  institution  established  by 
the  Law,  and,  in  addition,  it  was  the  outward  symbol 
of  national  independence.  But  there  was  the  possi- 
bility to  surround  the  sacrificial  worship  with  an 
elaborate  artistic  program  which  would  spiritualize 
it.  And  this  suggestion,  growing  out  of  the  condi- 
tions of  the  age,  was  achieved  by  connecting  the 
sacrifices  with  a  soul-elevating  order  of  prayers  and 
recitals  in  which  the  national  creed  and  the  singing 
of  Psalms  to  the  accompaniment  of  instrumental 
music  was  made  the  center  of  interest  and  attraction. 
If  we  stop  to  consider  that  sacrifices  could  be 
offered  only  at  the  Temple  in  Jerusalem,  while  in 
the  rest  of  the  land  God  was  worshiped  exclusively 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  273 

by  prayer,  confession  of  faith,  Psalms  and  music, 
it  is  readily  seen  that  a  great  radical  change  in  the 
form  of  worship  had  taken  place:  The  people  at  large 
knew  of  no  form  of  worship  other  than  prayer  and 
song,  and  even  at  the  Temple  in  Jerusalem  the 
sacrificial  cult  was  set  into  a  brilliant  liturgical 
and  musical  frame,  which  seemingly  glorified  it,  but 
which  in  reality  weakened  its  significance  and,  con- 
sequently, its  position  as  an  indispensable  element 
of  religious  devotion. 

And  also  this  development  of  divine  worship  may 
be  best  understood  as  a  compromise  between  the  dif- 
ferent tendencies  of  the  age:  Priests  and  Levites 
found  a  welcome  opportunity  for  pompous  functions; 
the  adherents  of  mystical  tendencies  found,  in  poetry 
and  music,  opportunity  for  artistic  activation  of  their 
high-tuned  aesthetical  sentiment;  and  the  authori- 
tative representatives  of  rigid  monotheism,  they, 
too,  found  their  calculation  in  the  growing  importance 
of  liturgy  with  its  consequent  spiritualization  of  the 
sacrificial  cult.  If,  therefore,  the  Chronist  grants  first 
rank  especially  to  the  Levites  with  their  Psalms  and 
their  music  on  the  highest  historical  functions  of 
state,  he  simply  projects  the  conditions  of  his  time 
into  the  past,  a  procedure  which  contributed  greatly 
to  a  more  spiritual  conception  of  the  past. 

Particularly  instructive  is  the  way  how  the 
Chronist  seeks  to  justify  these  Levitical  functions  in 
the  past  in  sight  of  the  fact  that  in  the  national  doc- 
ument, the  Torah,  there  is  hardly  anything  about 
liturgy,  practically  nothing  about  song  and  music 
with  sacrifices,  and  absolutely  nothing  about  litur- 


274  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

gical  and  musical  functions  of  his  beloved  Levites 
(comp.  above).  Certain  intimations  in  Chronicles 
suggest  that  some  of  the  promoters  of  music  in  the 
Temple  have  played  with  the  thought  of  revivifying 
music  as  an  instrument  of  prophecy  (prediction  of 
the  future).  This  may  have  contributed  to  bring 
about  the  fact  noted  above  that  even  after  the  ad- 
mittance of  music  into  the  Temple  under  exclusion 
of  its  mantical  sub-feature  (comp.  above  about 
Urim — ve  Thumim),  the  authoritative  representa- 
tives of  Judaism  could  not  bring  themselves  to  per- 
mit the  slighest  hint  at  the  musical  functions  of  the 
Levites  in  the  Torah.  Thus  legally  this  whole  in- 
stitution had  been  pending  in  the  air,  as  it  were. 
It  is  this  inconvenience  that  the  Chronist  is  trying 
to  meet: 

The  book  of  Chronicles,  representing,  as  it  is,  a 
conception  of  Jewish  history  under  the  dynastic  aspect 
of  the  Davidides,  ascribes  to  David  legislative  au- 
thority after  Moses.  David  was  the  first  King  of 
Israel  in  the  period  of  whose  reign  the  name  JHVH 
was  dominating,  while  in  the  time  of  the  reign  of 
Saul  the  name  Elohim  was  dominating,  meaning 
that  in  his  time  there  was  no  mercy  (comp.  I  Chr.  IV, 
10;  V,  20.22  with  VI,  16.17;  also  comp.  I  Chr.  X,  13- 
XI,  1-8).  The  Chronist  relates  in  a  very  circumstan- 
cial  account  how  David  introduced  the  Levitic 
functions  of  song  and  music  in  the  Temple,  often 
emphasizing  that  this  has  been  created  by  David 
through  divine  inspiration  as  a  legal  institution  with 
binding  power.  This  effort  on  the  part  of  the  Chron- 
ist shows  clearly  that  the  notion  of  a  Tradition  going 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  275 

back  to  Moses  had  not  yet  been  conceived,  or,  at 
least,  not  yet  generally  accepted,  in  those  days.  The 
fact,  however,  that  the  Talmudists  were  strenuously 
looking  for  a  passage  in  the  Torah  on  which  to  base 
the  institution  of  Levites  singing  and  playing  in 
conjunction  with  the  sacrifices,  ignoring  the  attempt 
of  the  Chronist  to  cover  it  with  the  authority  of 
David  altogether,  shows  conclusively  that  they  were 
hesitating  to  concede  legislative  authority  to  any 
historic  personality  other  than  Moses.  At  any 
rate,  the  attempt  of  the  Chronist  bears  witness  to 
the  actuality  of  the  question  in  those  days  as  to  how 
to  justify  later  developments  in  the  religious  practice. 
This  imparts  to  us  further  insight  into  the  con- 
ception of  Oral  Tradition.  Oral  Tradition  as  inter- 
pretation of  the  written  law  evolved  from  the  com- 
promise-combinations of  the  several  law-codes.  Oral 
tradition  again  as  new  institutions  they  would  ascribe 
to  great  historical  authorities.  In  most  instances  this 
had  some  justification  in  historical  reality:  In  the 
case  of  the  institution  under  discussion,  we  know 
that  the  personality  of  David  had  been  brought  into 
some  connection  with  religious  music  (cf.  above). 
And  even  though  the  attempt  of  the  Chronist  to  give 
David  legislative  authority  failed  of  recognition, 
the  instutition  being  derived  rather,  by  remote  in- 
terpretation, from  the  Torah,  it  was  not  altogether 
unsuccessful:  Our  Tradition  recognizes  David  as 
the  "Psalmist"  and  as  the  reorganizer  of  the  insti- 
tution of  Levitical  music  (Main  account  of  the  or- 
ganization of  the  Levites  for  Psalms,  songs  and 
music:  I  Chr.  ch.  XXV;  note  verses  1-3:  music  and 


276  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Psalms  were  introduced  by  David  as  a  prophetic  in- 
stitution: David's  legislative  authority  for  this  in- 
stitution strongly  emphasized:  2Chr.  XXIII,  18; 
XXIX,  25-30 ;  XXXV,  15 ;Esra  III,  10;  Neh.  XII,  45- 
47;  other  passages:  I  Chr.  VI,  18f;  IX,  33;  XV,  16. 
19-29;XVI,  4-7.42;  2  Chr.  V,  12.13;  VII,  6;  IX,  11; 
XXII,  13:  a  palace  revolution  to  the  accompaniment 
of  Psalms  and  music!     Neh.  XII,  27). 

The  tracing  of  the  institution  of  Levitical  music 
is  but  one  case,  typical  for  many  others  of  the  same 
character.  Most  of  the  new  institutions  not  pro- 
vided for  in  the  Torah,  are  the  creation  of  this  period, 
going  under  the  name  of  "Sopheric  Institutions"  or 
"Sopheric  Commandments".  Talmudic  tradition  knows 
of  different  titles  of  official  legislative  and  administra- 
tive bodies  supposed  to  have  existed  in  our  period : ' '  Esra 
and  his  Assistants",  the  "Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue" 
then  again  (for  the  Greek  period)  "Synhedrin"  or  the 
"Great  Synhedrin",  the  Great  Beth-Din  (Court)  or 
the  "Great  Beth-Din  in  the  Hewn  (Stone)  Hall"  and 
others.  This  tradition  is  rather  conflicting  with  the 
information  found  in  Josephus  and  other  Graeco- 
Jewish  writers.  And  there  have  been  many  attempts 
made  to  harmonize  these  traditions  or  to  prove  the 
correctness  of  one  at  the  expense  of  the  other.  But 
no  matter  which  stand  we  take  in  this  question,  there 
can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that,  except  for  inter- 
ruptions in  times  of  radical  political  or  military  up- 
heavals, there  had  always  been  some  sort  of  supreme 
religious  authority  at  Jerusalem.  It  may  be  doubt- 
ful whether  this  supreme  authority  had  any  compe- 
tence in  the  political  and  judicial  administration,  or 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  277 

whether  there  were  other,  secular,  bodies  alongside 
the  religious  authority  to  take  care  of  the  non-relig- 
ious branches  of  administration  (as,  indeed,  it  was  the 
case,  for  a  certain  period  at  least).  But  from  all  we 
can  see  in  the  sources,  it  was  the  undisputed  function 
of  that  (religious)  body  to  sanction  all  new  insti- 
tutions, evolved  either  from  interpretation  or  from 
the  conditions  of  the  time,  and  to  surround  them  with 
the  necessary  legal  authority  by  regulating  the  de- 
tails and  determining  the  sphere  of  their  validity. 
By  this,  however,  we  do  not  intend  to  minimize  the 
evidence  of  the  general  tendency  in  talmudic  liter- 
ature, that  the  authority  of  the  Soperim  in  itself  did 
not  deem  sufficient.  This  may  be  due  in  part  to  the 
controversy  between  Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  when 
two  conflicting  traditions  were  facing  each  other. 
But  even  in  cases  where  there  was  no  opposition,  a 
backing  in  the  Torah  is  always  the  much  desired 
source  of  authority:  Usually  they  would  trace  a 
given  institution  to  some  great  biblical  personality, 
at  the  same  time,  however,  refer  to  some  passage 
in  the  Torah  where  this  or  that,  new,  or  enlargement 
of  an  old,  institution  is  hinted  at  by  virtue  of  some 
hermeneutical  rule:  They  followed  the  Chronist  in 
the  idea  of  tracing  new  institutions  to  biblical  per- 
sonalities, but  refused  acceptance  of  his  suggestion 
to  recognize  any  binding  legislative  authority  to 
any  personality  other  than  Moses. 


278  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


5.     Daniel  and   Koheleth. 

These  two  biblical  books,  the  last  to  be  discussed 
here,  may  be  very  different  in  content  and  literary 
character.  Yet,  under  the  aspect  decisive  here  they 
will  be  best  understood  in  a  joint  discussion: 

Both  of  these  books  deal  primarily  with  the  problem 
of  justice.  Daniel  treats  the  national -historical, 
Koheleth  the  individual,  problem  of  justice.  Daniel 
arrives  at  a  positive,  Koheleth  at  'a  negative  solution, 
both,  concerning  the  reality  of  justice  in  general, 
as  also  concerning  the  eschatological  solution.  These 
positive  and  negative  points  of  contact  between  these 
two,  also  chronologically  contiguous,  books  will  im- 
part to  us  most  valuable  information  about  the 
spiritual,  notably  about  the  eschatological  currents 
of  their  time,  currents  which  produced  and  deter- 
mined the  eschatological  hopes  of  Judaism  for  thous- 
ands of  years  to  come. 

The  book  of  Daniel  in  its  present  shape  has  as 
its  objective  the  defense  of  divine  justice  in  history, 
at  the  same  time,  however,  paying  attention  also  to 
the  problem  of  individual  justice.  And  though  the 
treatment  of  this  latter  problem  here  is  not  nearly 
as  detailed  as  in  Ezekiel,  nevertheless  Daniel  can 
be  best  understood  out  of  Ezekiel.  The  book  follows 
Ezekiel  in  the  doctrine  of  angels  and  Mercabah,  and, 
most  particularly,  in  the  solutions  suggested  and 
formulated  in  the  defense  of  justice.  In  the  general 
solution  of  the  national  problem  of  justice,  namely 
in  the  prophetic  vision  of  restoration,  the  final  redactor 
of  the  book  of  Daniel  follows  all  previous  prophets  and 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  279 

writers.  But,  in  addition,  he  converts  the  picture 
of  the  dry  bones  in  the  Valley  becoming  reanimated 
by  the  "Ruah  JHVH"  and  reorganizing  to  new  life, 
used  by  Ezekiel  as  a  symbol  of  political  resurrection, 
into  reality.  He  teaches  real  bodily  resurrection  of 
the  dead  as  a  part  of  the  working  of  justice  at  the 
time  of  judgment.  National  justice  will  realize  in 
the  resurrection  of  the  nation,  and  individual  justice 
in  the  resurrection  of  the  individuals,  both  the  just 
and  the  unjust.  The  just  will  wake  up  to  eternal  life, 
the  unjust  to  eternal  torture  (XII,  2.3;  the  national 
solution  in  the  Visions  and  in  ch.  XII  in  its  entirety). 
This  is  the  only  place  in  the  whole  Bible  where  the 
individual  eschatological  hope  is  given  such  clear 
and  unequivocal  expression.  This  may  be  explained 
by  the  important  part  this  doctrine  played  in  the 
great  martyrdom  of  the  Maccabean  period,  as  evi- 
denced in  contemporary  Graeco-Jewish  literature 
(Book  of  Jubilees,  Enoch,  2  Maccabean  and  others). 
But  in  that  literature  also  the  other  conception 
of  the  individual-eschatological  solution,  namely  that 
of  spiritual  immortality  immediately  after  death,  is 
discussed  with  fervid  insistence.  And  we  have  seen 
that  it  was  this  conception  of  the  individual  solution 
which  has  been  suggested  in  Job  and  given  a  more 
or  less  definite  expression  of  hope  in  Psalms.  Now 
if  in  spite  of  this  indisputable  fact,  no  book,  nay  no 
sentence,  has  been  admitted  into  the  canon  in  which 
the  hope  for  individual  immortality  is  given  such 
clear  expression,  as  the  doctrine  of  bodily  resurrection 
in  the  book  of  Daniel,  this  had  two  reasons,  one  dog- 
matical  and   one   historical.     Dogmatically  there  was 


280  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

the  apprehension  lest  the  doctrine  of  the  individual 
continuing  life  in  spiritual  immortality  right  after 
death  becomes  an  added  incentive  to  necromantical 
practices,  which  just  at  that  time,  under  Greek  in- 
fluences, were  more  in  vogue  than  in  the  immediately 
preceding  age.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  Phari- 
sees preferred  to  give  the  people  the  unphilosophic 
conception  of  immortality:  The  dead  is  sunken  in  a 
long  deep  sleep  from  which  he  will  wake  up  on  the  day 
of  resurrection.  The  historical  reason  resulted  from 
the  controversies  between  Pharisees  and  Sadducees. 
The  latter  rejected  bodily  resurrection,  but  not  (as 
erroneously  believed)  also  spiritual  immortality  of 
the  soul.  This  accounts  for  the  fact  that  the  doc- 
trine of  bodily  resurrection  had  been  enacted  as  a 
dogma  in  Judaism  prior  to  the  enactment  of  the  doc- 
trine of  spiritual  immortality  of  the  soul  (cf.  for  the 
whole  of  the  preceding  discussion,  Toldoth  I  chs.  V- 
VII,  p.   161-181). 

But  that  time,  the  time  of  the  most  deep-going 
eschatological  excitement,  and  in  which,  more  than 
in  all  the  preceding  biblical  development,  justice 
was  defended  with  clearly  and  unequivocally  form- 
ulated eschatological  hopes,  was  not  lacking  in 
counter-currents  of  radical  despair  of  the  reality  of 
justice  altogether,  thwarting  all  suggested  solutions 
in  its  defense,  notably  the  hope  of  the  individual  for 
eschatological  justice.  The  great  strength  of  the 
individual  eschatological  hope  in  those  times  is  ac- 
counted for  in  part  by  the  very  efficient  succor  it 
received  from  Plato,  who  plays  the  idea  of  individual 
spiritual  immortality  as  the  last  trump  in  his  defense 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  281 

of  justice.  And  it  could  not  fail  to  pass  that  also  in 
Jewish  circles  a  man  should  arise  who  felt  attracted 
by  the  arguments  against  justice  advanced  in  some 
of  the  Platonic  dialogues.  And  thus  one  writer  under- 
took it  to  give  expression  to  these  subversive  moods, 
possibly  swaying  the  minds  of  many  in  his  sphere,  in 
a  book.     This  is  the  book  of  Koheleth: 

The  heretical,  or  rather  semi-heretical,  views 
found  in  Koheleth  are  by  no  means  new  in  biblical 
literature.  On  the  contrary,  in  many  biblical  books 
we  find  views  much  more  radical  than  those  advocated 
by  the  author  of  the  book  of  Koheleth.  This  is  es- 
pecially true  of  the  heretical  views  mentioned  in  Job 
and  Psalms.  The  difference,  however,  is  this: 
Everywhere  else  in  the  Bible  those  views  are  mentioned 
by  prophets^  Psalmists  and  writers,  only  in  order  to 
refute  them,  while  the  author  of  Koheleth  voices  the 
semi-radical  views  presented  as  his  own  convictions. 
Of  course,  in  its  present  shape  the  book  contains  some 
later  interpolations,  which,  wholly  or  partly,  neutralize 
the  heretical  views  uttered.  But  if  we  disregard 
these  few,  easily  recognized,  sentences,  the  book  of 
Koheleth  may  be  best  characterized  as  the  Jewish 
Philebos  (Plato's  philosophy,  being  largely  the  phi- 
losophy of  justice,  swings  around  the  two  aspects  of 
the  problem:  What  is  justice?  and  Which  is  the  happier 
life,  that  of  the  just,  or  that  of  the  unjust?  This  is 
especially  evident  in  The  State,  the  positive  result  of 
the  dialogue  being  the  answer  to  the  question  of  justice 
in  its  two  formulations.  The  problem  of  justice  in 
its  second  formulation  is  the  problem  to  the  minute 
discussion  of  which  Plato  has  devoted  his  dialogue 


282  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Philebos).  What  is  better,  Phronesis  (-Sophia,  Wisdom), 
or  Hedone  (Pleasure)?  This  is  the  problem  of 
Koheleth:  What  is  better — Hochma  (Wisdom),  or 
Holeluth  and  Sichluth  (Pleasure ;  Ignorance  —  Angoia)  ? 

The  general  discussion  of  the  problem  goes  on  in 
a  reflection  on  all  enjoyments  life  offers,  under  the 
Platonic  schedule  of  the  Three  Passions:  Eating, 
Drinking  and  Secsual  gratification,  and  extending  over 
the  other,  subsidiary,  ways  of  spending  the  energies 
of  life.  The  solusion  at  which  Koheleth  arrives,  is 
different  from  that  of  Plato.  The  latter  arrives  at 
the  positive  result  that  Phronesis,  life  under  wisdom 
and  justice,  is  preferable  to  Hedone  and  Agnoia,  life 
under  pleasure  and  ignorance.  Koheleth,  on  the 
contrary,  arrives  at  the  negative  result:  All  is  Vanity, 
both,  Hochma  and  Holeluth,  are  bitterly  disappoint- 
ing in  the  end  (cf.  Gesch,  der  jued,  Philosophic  II, 
1.  p.  355). 

The  best  philosophy  of  life,  according  to  Koheleth, 
is  not  to  hang  after  delusions,  to  enjoy  everything 
within  one's  reach,  but  with  temperance  and  judgment 
under  the  guidance  of  certain  practical  rules  of  life. 
Of  such  rules  the  author  offers  a  goodly  number  in  the 
form  of  gnomic  epigrams,  like  those  in  Proverbs: 
They  are  mostly  in  the  nature  of  practical  advise: 
Be  careful,  do  not  burn  the  candle  at  both  ends. 
Some  of  them  refer  to  the  political  behavior  of  the 
individual,  and  betray  the  influence  of  the  Platonic 
idea  of  the  ideal  king,  which  we  have  also  perceived 
in  Psalms  and  Proverbs  (Koh.  X,  16-20). 

Koheleth  starts  out  with  a  typical  Platonic  prob- 
lem, but  his  philosophy  of  life  betrays  the  disposition 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  283 

of  the  Stoic  Sage,  with  a  quite  perceptible  woof  of 
Epicureanism  in  between.  Plato  discusses  the  prob- 
lem under  the  definite  assumption  that  one  of  the  two, 
Phronesis  or  Hedone,  must  be  the  right  way  of  living' 
Koheleth,  on  the  other  hand,  while  coming  to  the 
seemingly  definite  conclusion  that  neither  of  the  two 
can  claim  the  title,  refuses  to  commit  himself  even  to 
this  negative  conclusion:  It  is  true,  all  is  vanity  of 
vanities,  but  do  not  get  excited  over  that,  either. 
There  is  nothing  that  can  claim  the  title  of  absolute 
value,  but  man  should  bear  it  resignedly.  This  is  the 
immutable  course  of  things,  in  which  man  may,  as 
best  he  can,  modestly  fit  in  his  own  little  existence,  and 
make  up  his  mind  to  do  it  cheerfully  at  that  (Stoic 
element).  To  enjoy  life?  Yes,  as  much  as  you  just 
can,  but  in  a  way  guaranteeing  your  safety  against 
self-destruction  (Epicurean  element).  God?  Of 
course,  there  is  a  supreme  divine  Being,  but  Kolheleth 
has  his  very  own  view  on  the  relation  of  the  divine 
to  the  human.  He  differs  not  only  with  Judaism  and 
Plato,  but  also  with  the  Stoics  and  Epicureans  who 
have  influenced  him  against  Plato.  Judaism  teaches 
the  ethico-cosmological  God-conception,  the  God 
of  justice.  So  does  Plato,  who  analyzes  this  doctrine 
into  the  three  theological  postulates  which  also  in 
the  Bible  occupy  the  center  of  interest:  He  who  profess- 
es these  three  postulates,  believing  firstly,  in  the  ex- 
istence of  God  as  the  cosmological  principle,  secondly 
in  His  omniscience  and  His  providence  over  world 
and  man,  and,  finally,  in  His  impartial  justice  to  be 
bribed  by  no  human  gift,  flattery  or  sacrifice,  he  be- 
lieves in   the  God  of  justice  and  retribution.     The 


284  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Stoics  deny  divine  personality,  wherefore  the  two  last 
postulates  are  out  of  congruence  with  their  God-con- 
ception. Epicure  would  admit  the  first,  and  perhaps 
also  the  first  half  of  the  second,  postulate,  God's  om- 
niscience, but  denies  divine  influence  on  the  events 
in  this  world,  especially  in  the  sphere  of  man,  his 
activities  and  relations,  wherefore  the  third  postulate 
is  out  of  congruence  with  his  God-conception.  Kohe- 
leth,  however,  admits  all  three  postulates.  God 
exists,  He  is  the  creator  of  the  world,  He  knows  every- 
thing about  it,  Interferes  in  the  affairs  of  man,  and  He 
cannot  be  bribed  by  sacrifices,  either.  But,  maintains 
Koheleth,  the  profession  of  the  three  postulates  by  no 
means  permits  us  to  speak  of  divine  providence  in 
justice.  The  very  postulate  of  God  not  being  ac- 
cessible to  any  kind  of  bribe  precludes  the  idea  of 
providence  on  the  basis  of  man's  religious  and  ethical 
conduct  (note  especially  IX,  1-3).  So  the  most  de- 
cisive aspect  of  providence  in  justice  is  self-contra- 
dicting. Koheleth  follows  Plato  in  centering  his 
thoughts  on  the  problem  of  justice,  but  he  does  so  in 
the  opposite  sense:  Reality  imparts  to  us  unequivocal- 
ly the  idea  that  there  is  but  a  very  loose  relation  be- 
tween the  conduct  of  man  and  his  fate  in  life,  and 
that,  at  any  rate,  this  relation  does  not  extend  be- 
yond the  validity  of  the  practical  rules  of  life.  The 
thought  of  securing  one's  prosperity  and  happiness 
through  a  perfect  religious  and  ethical  life,  appears 
indeed  very  remote.  Quite  likely,  God  exerts  some 
providence  over  the  world,  and  possibly  there  is  some- 
thing to  it,  to  adopt  certain  commandments  and  rules 
of  life  which  are  generally  considered  as  divine.  In 
the  first  place,  of  course,  this  refers  to  the  ethical  laws, 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  285 

but  there  may  be  some  merit  even  in  the  ritual  pre- 
cepts; at  times  it  may  even  be  advisable  to  bring 
sacrifices  (comp.  IV,  17  and  V,  3-4  with  the  attitude 
taken  in  the  book  of  Jonah  and  in  some  Psalms;  these 
verses,  however,  may  be,  or  at  least  contain,  later 
interpolations).  But  the  thought  that  we  be  in  a 
position  to  secure  for  ourselves  divine  favor,  as  it 
were,  is  clearly  to  be  rejected  as  against  the  obvious 
reality  of  things.  No  doubt,  God  has  his  plan,  thus 
far  Koheleth  yields  to  the  convincing  power  of  the 
cosmological  proof,  as  advanced  by  Deutero-Isaiah. 
Job  and  Plato.  But  not  only  did  He  fail  to  really 
disclose  to  us  His  plan,  but,  on  the  contrary,  He  guards 
it  jealously  as  His  mystery,  and  all  attempts  at  finding 
it  out  in  order  to  arrange  our  lives  accordingly,  are, 
from  the  outset,  doomed  to  failure.  Many  tried  it,  but 
reality  bears  indisputable  testimony  that  all  these  at- 
tempts, as  they  were  unsuccessful  in  the  past,  so  will 
they  hopelessly  fail  in  all  future  (The  central  problem: 
III,  10-17 ;  the  last  words  of  verses  14  and  15  decidedly 
later  additions;  V,  1  in  the  sense  of  III,  11  and  VIII, 
17 ;  IX,  5 ;  God's  plan  not  revealed  to  man;  V,  2  and  6: 
against  dreams  as  a  means  of  communication  between 
God  and  man?  Verses  3-4,  as  also  the  end  of  5 
evidently  later  additions,  but  not  so  much  on  the 
score  of  the  angel  in  5,  as  this  could  well  be  harmon- 
ized with  the  general  attitude  of  Koheleth  to  tradi- 
tional conceptions  of  things;  VII,  15-18:  conclusion  of 
18  later  addition;  VIII,  14;  verses  12  and  13  later 
additions;  IX,  1-4.11.12). 

Expectedly,  Koheleth  knows  all  the  arguments 
advanced  in  the  defense  of  justice,  but  he  refutes 
them  as  wholly  inconclusive: 


286  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


First  of  all,  the  very  basis  on  which  the  whole  idea 
of  providence  in  justice  rests,  namely  freedom  of 
mans  will,  is  quite  prolematical  (VI,  10;  VII,  20; 
VIII,  4,  11;  IX,  1.12).  Of  the  individual  arguments 
or  explanations  in  the  defense  of  justice,  Koheleth 
would  not  admit  that  the  cosmological  proof  proves 
more  than  divine  omniscience,  intention  and  plan, 
but  by  no  means  the  reality  of  what  we  consider 
justice.  Of  divine  mercy  manifest  in  the  living 
nature  which  the  author  of  the  book  of  Job  advances 
as  an  argument  for  the  reality  of  justice,  Koheleth 
takes  no  cognizance:  The  evident  cruelty  in  the 
world  of  man  weighs  more.  Koheleth  denies  the 
doctrine  of  mercy.  He  never  uses  the  name  of  JHVri, 
rather  using  "ha-Elohim"  "the  God"  (comp.  Greek 
"ho-Theos";  cf.  Gesch.  der  jued.  Philosophic  II,  1,  p 
179-189). 

This  disposes  of  the  arguments  of  long-suffering, 
meant  to  account  for  the  prosperity  of  the  wicked, 
and  of  family  retribution,  meant  to  account  for  both, 
the  prosperity  of  the  wicked,  and  the  misfortune  of 
the  just  (cf.  VIII,  12.13,  where  the  argument  of  long- 
suffering  is  evidently  a  later  interpolation). 

The  argument  of  family  retribution  is  additionally 
dealt  with  in  particular,  and  expressly  refuted:  Re- 
ality speaks  against  the  idea  of  family  account  of  sin 
beyond  the  necessary  effects  of  natural  causes.  And 
also  the  Epicurean  egotistical  attitude  is  brought  to 
bear  against  the  argument  of  family  account:  I  can- 
not be  rewarded  in  a  future  which  is  not  mine  own 
(II,  18-21;  VI,  8.13-15;  VI,  1.2). 

Notably  strong  are  the  objections  which  Koheleth 
advances  against  the  eschatological  hopes  of  the  in- 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  287 

dividual  as  a  remedy  for  the  obvious  injustice  pre- 
vailing in  this  world.  He  refutes  the  suggestion  of 
retribution  in  the  Sheol,  bodily  resurrection,  or  spirit- 
ual immortality :  He  seems  to  lean  toward  the  view 
that  the  "Ruah"  (spirit)  which  animates  the  body 
of  man,  returns  to  God,  at  least  he  leaves  this  question 
open.  But  this  would  only  much  the  more  accentu- 
ate the  futility  of  all  eschatological  hope  for  justice 
in  the  Hereafter:  The  return  of  the  human  Ruah  to 
God  extinguishes  all  individual  existence  (comp.  above 
to  Psalms).  Bodily  resurrection,  again,  is  altogether 
out  of  the  question:  The  body  resolves  in  dust  and 
thus  returns  to  the  earth  from  which  it  has  come 
(III,  18-21;  VIII,  8;  IX,  4-10;  XI,  5;  XII,  1-7;  the 
concluding  verse  is  Koheleth's  last  trump  against 
the  eschatalogical  suggestion  in  the  defense  of  justice: 
The  decay  of  man's  body  already  sets  in  with  the 
marasmus  of  old  age,  and  after  death  the  dust  re- 
turns to  its  origin,  Earth,  just  as  the  spirit  returns 
to  its  origin,  God.  This  verse,  XII,  7,  was  taken  for 
a  positive  statement  in  favor  of  spiritual  immortality. 
This  then,  was  found  to  be  in  contradiction  with  III, 
19-21.  There  the  return  of  the  dust  to  earth  is 
positively  asserted,  while  as  to  the  spirit  of  man  there  is 
first  a  positive  statement  identifying  it  with  the  gen- 
eral animalic  principle  of  breath,  and  then  an  un- 
answered question  whether  the  Ruah  of  man  may 
not,  after  all,  be  different  from  the  animalic  breath 
and  "go  upward".  For  this  reason  some  consider 
XII,  7  a  later  interpolation.  But  there  is  really  no 
contradiction:  In  III,  21  the  higher  quality  of  the  hu- 
man Ruah  is  reflectively  considered,  in  XII,  7,  on 
the  other  hand,   the  return  of  the  Ruah  to  God  is 


288  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

advanced  as  an  argument  against  individual  immor- 
tality; cf.  Gen.  Ill,  19  and  the  Psalms  treated  above, 
notably  Ps.  CIII,  14-16  and  CIV,  29.30.— Koheleth 
XII,  10-14  is  a  later  addition  in  order  to  conclude  the 
book  with  a  statement  neutralizing  the  philosophy 
of  life  genuine  to  the  book. 

We  know  that  controversies  were  going  on  as  late 
as  in  the  early  Tannaitic  period  about  the  admit- 
tance of  the  book  of  Koheleth  into  the  Canon.  Now 
we  understand  perfectly  well  the  position  of  the  op- 
ponents, but  the  position  of  those  in  favor  of  the  book 
and,  most  especially,  the  final  favorable  decision,  is 
nothing  short  of  a  puzzle.  There  were  such  con- 
troversies also  about  other  books:  about  Ezekiel  on 
account  of  Mercabeh  and  some  contradicting  laws, 
about  Proverbs  on  account  of  the  theory  of  ideas, 
about  Song  of  Songs  on  account  of  its  erotic  character, 
and  about  Esther,  evidently,  on  account  of  its  ad- 
vocating the  idea  that  under  certain  circumstances 
the  marriage  between  a  Jewess  and  a  non-Jewish 
potentate  may  be  tolerated  or  even  encouraged  (and, 
perhaps,  also  out  of  opposition  to  the  celebration  of 
Purim,  altogether,  quite  perceptibly  felt  in  some 
talmudic  sources).  The  difference,  however,  is  this. 
We  can  well  understand  that  the  authoritative  repre- 
sentatives of  Judaism  ultimately  felt  constrained  to 
yield  to  the  popular  mystical  proclivities  and  prac- 
tical demands.  But  there  is  nothing  on  the  face  of 
things  that  may  have  moved  the  authorities  to  adapt, 
by  additions  (and,  perhaps,  also  by  eliminations),  a 
book  as  subversive  of  the  essential  doctrines  of  Juda- 
ism as  the  book  of  Koheleth,  to  a  very  much  lowered 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  289 

minimum -standard,  in  order  to  force  it  into  the 
Canon.  Why  did  they  not  "take  care"  of  the  book 
altogether,  as  in  the  case  of  many  an  other  book 
which  now  belongs  to  the  Apocrypha?  The  most  con- 
venient explanation,  of  course,  would  be,  if  we  could 
say  that  the  authorities  desired  to  preserve  for  future 
generations  the  literary  monuments  of  all  spiritual 
currents  in  the  course  of  the  ages.  But  this  would 
assume  rather  too  much  of  a  literary  conscience  in 
the  modern  sense.  We,  indeed,  consider  it  a  most 
fortunate  contingency  that  also  such  a  literary  pro- 
duct as  Koheleth  was  preserved  for  us,  in  which  we 
learn  of  the  presence  in  that  period  of  a  current  of 
thought  which,  whatever  its  merits,  bears  testimony 
to  a  highly  philosophical  capacity  of  mind.  In  other 
biblical  books  these  currents  are  presented  to  us  in 
formulations  conceived  by  the  pious  writers  for  the 
purpose  of  their  refutation.  In  the  book  of  Koheleth, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  views  of  the  opponents  of 
Judaism  are  given  to  us  in  a  certain  measure  of 
systematic  coherence  not  much  altered  by  the  later, 
easily  isolated,  pious  additions  and  changes.  This, 
as  has  been  said,  is  our  appreciation  of  the  book. 
The  authorities  of  Judaism  in  the  time  of  the  final 
closing  of  the  Canon,  however,  must  have  had  some 
more  practical  end  in  view  in  adopting  this  book  into 
the  Canon.  Perhaps  we  may  not  go  amiss  in  pre- 
suming that  in  admitting  all  and  any  of  those  books 
to  which  there  was  strong  opposition,  the  idea  was 
decisive  that  to  retain  the  objectionable  views  within 
the  Canon  and  follow  them  up  closely  with  what 
they  considered  efficient  refutations,   will   be   much 


290  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

more  beneficial  to  the  religious  development  of  later 
generations  than  it  would  be  if  those  views  were  en- 
tirely suppressed.  This  idea,  frequently  suggested 
by  the  Talmudists,  sharpens  down  to  the  famous 
imperative  of  the  Mishnah:  "And  know  what  to 
answer  to  the  Epicurean!"  The  preservation  of  the 
book  was  also  made  less  difficult  by  the  fact  that  it 
expounds  no  God-denying  heresy.  On  the  contrary, 
it  is  borne  by  deep  religiosity  of  a  very  sincere  char- 
acter. The  attitude  of  the  book  may  be  styled  a 
systematic  elaboration  of  the  very  last  solution  of 
the  problem  of  justice  suggested  in  the  book  of  Job: 
We  cannot  comprehend  the  divine  plan.  Thus  far 
Koheleth  goes  with  the  author  of  Job.  They  differ, 
though,  in  the  consequences  which  they  draw  from 
this  sentence.  The  author  of  Job  concludes:  Justice 
as  we  understand  it,  is  a  reality,  but  we  do  not  know 
how  to  explain  the  seemingly  contradicting  realities. 
Koheleth,  on  the  contrary,  concludes:  Man  cannot 
comprehend  the  ways  of  God,  consequently  he  has 
no  right  to  postulate  a  sort  of  justice  of  his  own  con- 
struction, and  how  much  less  to  assume  its  reality. 

But  whatever  may  have  been  the  reason  for  re- 
taining Koheleth,  and  the  other  biblical  books  men- 
tioned, in  the  Canon,  to  us  this  decision  means  an 
invaluable  fortunate  occurrence.  These  books  are 
of  so  great  a  value  to  us  not  only  because  they  pres- 
served  to  us  some  currents  of  thought  deviating  even 
in  biblical  times  from  the  authoritative  attitude,  but 
also  for  another  reason: 

These  books  offer  us  the  possibility  to  conceive 
and  to  comprehend  the  most  relevant  currents  in  the 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  291 

spiritual    development   of   Judaism    in    the   ages    to 
come,  out  of  the  different  currents  in  biblical  times: 

6.     Outlook  into  Post-Biblical  Developments. 

Judaism  in  biblical  times,  we  have  seen,  was 
going  on  developing  amid  intense  struggle  with  the 
great  world-cultures  of  antiquity.  Babylonia,  As- 
syria, Egypt,  the  nations  of  Canaan,  Neo-Babylonia, 
Persia  and  Greece — these  are  the  great  World- Powers 
of  civilization  and  culture,  against  which  Judaism  in 
biblical  times  had  to  fight  for  a  spiritual  existence  of 
its  own.  But  these  struggles  were  not  merely  negative, 
defensive,  but  rather  struggles  for  the  assimilation  of 
new  elements,  throes  of  birth.  From  these  travails 
Judaism  came  out  the  richer  and  the  deeper.  And  if 
we  consider  that  to  these  great  powers  of  civilization 
we  must  add  only  the  Roman  element  to  have  men- 
tioned all  historical  elements  of  civilization  and  cul- 
ture, it  is  easily  seen  why  the  development  of  biblical 
times  was  preformative  and  directive  for  all  ages  to 
come.  It  has  been  shown  in  what  preceded  how 
liturgy  as  a  confession  of  faith,  as  also  the  conception 
of  written  and  oral  law,  have  evolved  from  the  con- 
ditions of  biblical  developments.  But  the  pre- 
formative impetus  of  historical  junctures  and  sit- 
uations in  biblical  times  manifest  itself  not  only  in 
the  direct  authoritative  line  of  development,  but  in 
all  currents  in  post-biblical  Judaism,  also  in  times 
when  the  demarcation  line  between  authoritative 
and  non-authoritative  is  almost,  even  if  not  altogether, 
impossible  of  determination: 


292  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Of  the  two  lines  of  development  which  appear  on 
our  horizon  as  the  direct  continuation  of  the  biblical 
development,  the  talmudic  is  more  authoritative  than 
the  Alexandrian.  Nevertheless,  the  latter  may 
be  designated  as  the  more  direct  continuation  of  the 
Bible  as  literature.  Many  literary  units  of  the 
Graeco-Jewish  period,  known  by  the  name  of  Apo- 
crypha, appear  in  biblical  garb,  and  were  undoubtedly 
advanced  with  the  claim  to  be  recognized  as  such 
and  to  be  embodied  into  the  Canon.  These  claims  were 
refused,  for  many,  chiefly,  however,  for  dogmatical, 
reasons,  owing  to  which  even  some  of  our  present 
biblical  books  barely  escaped  exclusion.  Graeco- 
Jewish  literature,  taken  in  its  entirety,  is  plainly  a 
more  intense  cultivation  of  those  tributaries  and 
under-currents  owing  to  whose  influences  the  position 
of  the  above  biblical  books  in  the  Canon  was  very 
much  labile  way  down  into  Tannaitic  times. 

One  group  of  the  Apocryphal  books  cultivates  the 
doctrine  of  Mercabah  and  angels  (Jubilees,  Enoch, 
Baruch,  Esra  Books,  and  others),  while  another 
cultivates  the  theory  of  ideas  in  different  degrees 
of  intensity  and  in  different  formulations,  chiefly 
as  the  Logos-theory,  or  as  the  agadistic  version  of  the 
theory  of  ideas,  according  to  which  only  a  number 
of  revered  things,  such  as  Torah,  Israel,  Sanctuary 
and  others,  were  supposed  to  have  had  some  sort 
of  pre-existence  in  heavenly  patterns  (Sirach,  Ascen- 
sion of  Moses,  the  Wisdoms  of  Solomon,  and  others). 
Even  more  decisively  in  this  entire  literature  marked 
as  a  continuation  of  biblical  literature,  by  one  tend- 
ency common  to  all  products  of  Graeco-Jewish  lit- 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  293 

erature.  It  is  this  the  tendency  to  present  matters 
in  such  a  light  as  to  make  it  evident  that  the  Jewish 
Constitution  not  only  reaches,  but  even  surpasses  the 
level  of  Plato's  Ideal  Constitution,  and  that  the  phil- 
osophy of  Judaism  contains  all  that  is  good  in  Plato's 
philosohpy.  This  tendency  brought  it  about  that  the 
problem  of  justice  in  this  literature  forms  the  nucleus 
of  all  formation  of  thought,  and  thus  easily  links  up 
with  the  same  phenomenon  in  biblical  literature, 
notably  in  Ezekiel,  Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Daniel 
and  Koheleth.  Considered  from  this  point  of  view, 
the  writings  of  Graeco-Jewish  literature  may  be  di- 
vided into  two  groups,  one  historical  and  one  phi- 
losophical. To  the  first  belong  those  literary  units 
which  present  the  history  of  the  Jews  under  the 
aspect  of  the  ideal  constitution,  combining  the  Pla- 
tonic cardinal  virtues  with  the  ideal  of  the  Thirteen. 
Their  avowed  purpose  is  to  show  that  all  historical 
development  of  the  world  at  large  had  for  its  aim 
the  preparation  and  creation  of  the  Jewish  state  un- 
der the  dominion  of  the  Torah  as  the  ideal  consti- 
tution, and,  also,  that  all  historical  events,  for  good 
and  evil,  were,  respectively,  the  effects  of  obedience 
and  disobedience  to  the  postulates  of  that  consti- 
tution. These  writings  cultivate  chiefly  philosophy 
of  history,  in  that  they  treat  philosophic  problems, 
notably  those  in  the  sphere  of  the  problem  of  justice, 
in  a  way  subsidiary  to  their  conception  of  history. 
This  group  of  writings  which  took  as  their  themes 
the  most  prominent  events  in  Jewish  history,  find 
their  most  comprehensive  representative  in  Josephus. 
The  other,   the  philosophic,  group  undertakes  it  to 


294  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

give  a  presentation  of  the  philosophy  of  Judaism  or 
the  "fatherlandish  philosophy,"  as  some  of  them  say, 
in  such  a  wise  as  to  accentuate  those  points  in  which 
indeed  there  is  great  similarity  in  Judaism  and  Platon- 
ism.  The  historical  sketches,  usually  at  the  end  of 
these  writings,  serve  only  as  illustration.  This 
group  finds  its  most  comprehensive  representative  in 
Philo,  whose  writings  again  may  be  divided  into  two 
groups  in  the  same  way  as  Graeco-Jewish  literature 
at  large. 

These  writers  take  much  from  Plato,  but  their 
philosophy  of  history  is  a  continuation  of  the  biblical 
way  of  thinking.  For  philosophy  of  history  of  this 
kind  there  is  no  model  in  Plato,  or  even  in  general 
Greek  literature.  The  models  for  this  line  of  thought 
they  found  exclusively  in  biblical  literature.  In 
artistic  form  of  presentation  this  literature  is  best 
characterized  as  a  blend  of  the  biblical  motif  of 
attributes  and  the  same  motif  in  the  dialogues  of 
Plato.  In  some  of  these  writings  this  genre  of 
literary  composition  achieves  a  very  high  degree  of 
mutual  interpenetration  of  thought  and  artistic 
suppleness  of  form. 

The  large  majority  of  these  literary  products  were 
written  not  only  for  apologetic,  but  also  for  propaganda, 
purposes.  They  were  calculated  not  only  to  defend 
Judaism  against  the  then  frequent  attacks  from 
Greek  writers,  but  also  to  win  the  non-Jewish  world 
for  Judaism.  By  their  philosophy  of  history  those 
writers  were  led  to  believe  that  Judaism  is  destined 
to  become  the  world-religion.  This  movement  led 
ultimately  to  the  rise  of  Christianity.  At  the  time, 
however,    when    Christianity    had    become    a    great 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  295 

power  menacing  the  very  existence  of  Judaism,  there 
were  no  Graeco-Jewish  writers  any  more  to  combat 
the  effects  of  their  own  creation.  It  was  then  that 
talmudic  Judaism,  quietly  developed  alongside  Graeco- 
Jewish  literature,  stepped  in  the  breach.  Early 
Christology  evolved  from,  and  on  the  basis  of,  the 
doctrines  of  Mercabah  and  angels.  And  so  the  author- 
itative representatives  of  Judaism  of  that  age,  the 
House  of  Hillel,  under  the  leadership  of  Rabbi 
Johanan  ben  Saccai,  felt  constrained  to  abandon  their 
reserved  attitude,  and  to  cultivate  the  mysteries  of 
Mercabah  (nnmo  npy&)  and  to  formulate  these  old 
doctrines  in  such  a  way  as  to  combat  the  aggressive 
new  religion  on  its  own  ground.  Later  Christology, 
on  the  other  hand,  was  based  on  the  theory  of  ideas, 
notably  on  the  Logos-theory,  in  order  to  further 
antinomism,  or  anti-legalism,  which  then  had  become 
the  most  tangible  point  of  difference  between  Judaism 
and  Christianity:  Jesus  was  the  Logos,  the  Word  of 
God,  the  eternal  living  Word  of  God,  which  attribute 
gave  him  the  power  to  abrogate  the  Torah,  the 
temporary  word  of  God  written  with  perishable  ink 
on  the  scroll.  In  order  to  combat  this  new  phase  of 
Christology,  Rabbi  Akiba  introduced  the  mysteries 
of  Bereshith  (JVttwa  new)  so  as  to  be  able  to  fight 
antinomistic  Christianity  on  its  own  ground.  This 
is  again  the  repetition  of  a  situation  which  was  pre- 
formed in  biblical  times:  Mercabah  and  Bereshith 
go  back  to  the  schools  of  Ezekiel  and  Jeremiah, 
respectively. 

These  mystical  disciplines  were  fraught  with  great 
danger  to  authoritative  Judism.  Mercabah  meant  a 
weakening  of  the  principle  of  unity,  and  contained  in 


296  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

its  mysteries  the  elements  of  the  doctrine  of  emanation 
of  matter  from  God,  thus  weakening  the  principle  of 
incorporeality.  Bereshith  led  up  to  the  doctrine  of 
eternal  primary  matter  alongside  of  God,  thus  to  a 
duality  of  principles,  and,  within  the  spiritual  prin- 
ciple, to  plurality,  the  Ideas  having  been  considered 
eternal  heavenly  beings  independent  of  God  in  their 
existence,  even  though  dependent  on  Him  as  to  their 
activation.  Judaism  safely  resisted  these  encroach- 
ments and  victoriously  warded  off  all  these  dangers. 
The  Mishnah,  the  foremost  and  authoritative  tal- 
mudical  document  of  its  time  (about  200  C.  E.), 
established  the  principle  of  creation  of  all  beings 
outside  of  God  and  won  for  it  undisputed  authority: 
Now  one  could  believe  in  Mercabah,  angels,  ideas  and 
primary  matter,  as  long  as  he  believed  that  all  these 
things  were  creatures  of  God,  not  eternal  beings  as 
was  believed  before. 

This  decisive  change  from  the  mystical  to  the 
relatively  philosophical  mode  of  thinking  was  greatly 
aided  by  the  powerful  development  of  the  Halacha 
(rot>n),  or  the  legal-logical  form  in  the  discussion  of 
the  law,  not  only  in  its  legal  branch  proper  (civil  and 
penal  law),  but  in  its  ritual  branch  as  well.  The 
logical  maturity  which  resulted  from  the  develop- 
ment of  halachistic  discussion,  bade  restraint  to  all 
mystical  proclivities.  In  Palestine,  the  original  seat 
of  mystical  speculations  in  Tannaitic  times,  where 
there  was  a  certain  disinclination  toward  exaggeratedly 
sharp-minded,  hair-splitting,  dialectics  in  halachistic 
discussion,  the  mystical  disciplines  were  cultivated 
more  intensely,  and  for  a  longer  period  of  time.     But 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  297 

soon  the  center  of  Judaism  was  transplanted  from 
Palestine  to  Babylonia.  Rabh,  the  founder  of  this 
new  center  of  Judaism  (about  230)  brought  with  him 
a  fairly  well  developed  mystical  system  from  Palestine. 
But  this  system  was  nearly  free  from  Mercabah 
elements,  being  rather  a  quite  acceptable  philosophic 
conception  of  the  theory  of  ideas,  in  spite  of  his  in- 
sistence on  the  principle  of  creation  which  the  philo- 
sophical schools  in  Greece  and  Rome  have  found 
irreconcilable  with  the  theory  of  ideas.  More  de- 
cisive is  the  fact  that  in  Babylonia  where  the  dialectical 
development  of  the  Halacha  has  reached  its  zenith, 
the  inclination  to  mystical  speculations  was  almost 
entirely  absent.  Indeed,  the  field  of  Agadah  (homi- 
letical  interpretation  of  Scripture)  in  general  was 
cultivated  but  little  in  the  schools  and  academies  of 
Babylonia.  And  the  little  they  would  cultivate, 
belonged  either  to  the  non-mystical,  philosophic, 
or  to  the  general  homiletical,  Agadah. 

The  non-mystical  philosophic  Agada  developed 
throughout  the  talmudic  period  partly  out  of  its  own 
potentialities,  partly,  however,  also  by  the  force  of 
outward  circumstances  and  relations,  as  the  Tal- 
mudists  often  were  forced  to  discuss  philosophic 
problems,  such  as  God's  unity,  omniscience  and 
omnipresence,  notably  questions  of  philosophy  of 
history,  with  philosophically  educated  Roman  po- 
tentates, and  with  Christian  or  neo-Persian  sectari- 
ans of  all  sorts.  In  talmudic  Agadah,  consisting  as 
it  does  mostly  of  aphoristic  sayings,  there  can  be  no 
thought  of  composition  in  artistic  motifs.  But  if 
we  investigate  into  the  deeper  mutual  relations  of 


298  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

the  aphoristically  presented  thoughts,  we  find  that 
talmudic  speculation,  too,  is  a  system  of  thought 
conceived  in  the  combined  biblical- Platonic  motif 
of  attributes.  The  new  departure  in  talmudic  liter- 
ature, over  and  above  the  biblical  way  of  expression, 
is  the  development  of  logical  dialectics. 

This  prepared  the  Jews  for  the  influence  of  A  ristotle. 
After  the  final  redaction  of  the  Babylonian  Talmud 
(ab.  550),  in  the  Midrashic  literature  of  the  Geonic 
period,  we  find  the  mystical  disciplines  of  Mercabah 
and  Bereshith  flourishing  again.  And  at  the  end  of 
the  eighth  or  the  beginning  of  the  ninth  century  a 
finished  product  of  the  theory  of  ideas  appears  on  the 
horizon,  the  "Book  of  Jecirah  (Creation)".  The 
book  evidently  evolved  out  of  the  school  of  Rabh  in 
Babylonia,  and  the  first  philosophic  writings  of 
Jewish  Middle  Ages  which  made  their  appearance 
with  the  reawakening  of  the  spirit  of  the  Halacha 
(second  half  of  ninth  century),  were  commentaries  to 
the  Book  of  Jecirah.  But  the  Book  of  Jecirah  con- 
tains also  some  (later  interpolated)  elements  of 
Mercabah,  and  so  it  came  about  that  that  book  had 
become  also,  and  in  a  more  marked  degree,  the  basis 
of  the  medieval  mystical  discipline  of  Cabbalah. 
In  fact,  the  Book  of  Jecirah  has  been  throughout 
the  ages,  as  it  is  today,  the  recognized  authoritative 
text-book  of  Cabbalah. 

The  development  of  dialectical  philospohy  proper 
toward  the  end  of  the  ninth  century  was  due  specific- 
ally to  two  factors:  One  is  the  new  contact  of  the  Jews 
with  Greek  philosophy,  notably  with  the  philosophy 
of    Aristotle.     This    evolved    from    the    Christian- 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  299 

Syrian  schools  of  philosophy  of  the  fourth  and  fifth 
centuries,  in  conjunction  with  the  academy  in  Gon- 
dashapur  (530-750)  and  the  later  developed  Arabic 
seats  of  learning,  science  and  philosophy.  The 
second  factor  was  the  Karaitic  movement.  The  Kara- 
ites attacked  the  Mercabah  doctrines  of  the  Talmudist 
for  their  anthromorphic  God-conception  in  order  to 
shake  the  confidence  of  the  people  in  talmudic  tra- 
dition. The  Karaites  themselves  joined  the  liberal 
theological  school  of  the  Arabs,  the  Mutazila,  who 
professed  a  doctrine  based  on  the  theory  of  ideas,  as 
against  the  orthodox  school  of  Arabic  theologians 
whose  doctrine  was  based  on  Mercabah  (both  of 
these  parties  having  built  up  their  theories  under 
Jewish  influence). 

This  led  the  authoritative  wing  of  Judaism,  the 
Rabbanites,  to  philosophy.  And  they  even  sur- 
passed the  Karaites  in  that  they  rejected  not  only 
the  theory  of  Mercabah,  rejected  by  the  Karaites, 
but  also  the  theory  of  ideas,  professed  by  the  latter. 
They  could  not  remove  the  incriminated  passages 
from  talmudic  literature,  but  they  removed  their 
contents  by  rational  interpretation.  This  was  chiefly 
done  by  the  Eastern  School  of  Jewish  philosophers  of 
which  'Saadya  (892-942)  was  the  foremost  repre- 
sentative, the  Saadya-group.  This  group  base  their 
philosophy  on  Aristotle's  Physics,  which  is  free  from 
all  mysticism.  Then,  under  the  influence  of  the 
Arabic  Neo-Platonic  Aristotelians  and  other  mystical 
schools,  there  developed  the  Western  School  of 
Jewish  philosophers,  led  by  Gabirol  (1021-1070), 
the    Gabiral-group,    on    the    ground    of    Aristotle's 


300  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Metaphysics,  which  is  much  nearer  to  Platonic 
mysticism.  The  members  of  this  group  were  no 
Neo-Platonists,  at  least  as  far  as  the  principles  go. 
But  compared  with  each  other  we  may  say  that  the 
Saadya-group  and  the  Gabirol-group  are,  respectively, 
the  late  representatives  of  the  schools  of  Jeremiah 
and  Ezekiel  in  biblical  times.  Maimuni  (1135-1204) 
then  tried  to  unite  the  authoritatively  acceptable 
elements  of  both  groups.  Then  the  mystical  dis- 
cipline of  Cabbalah  which  during  the  classical  period 
of  Jewish  philosophy  (IX-XII  centuries)  was  going 
through  the  preparatory  phases  in  a  latent  develop- 
ment, appeared  forcefully  on  the  horizon  of  Jewish 
thought.  Now  Philosophy  and  Cabbalah  represent, 
respectively,  the  schools  of  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel 
of  biblical  times. 

And  again  both  of  these  schools  of  thought 
develop  under  the  sign  of  the  motif  of  attributes, 
Cabbalah  under  the  combined  biblical-Platonic,  phil- 
osophy under  the  same,  but  differentiated  by  a  hue 
of  Aristotelian,  thought.  All  problems  of  medieval 
Jewish  philosophy  evolve  out  of  the  problem  of 
attributes  and  are  discussed  and  solved  in  intimate 
interrelation  with  it:  all  after  the  pattern  we  know 
from  biblical  times.  With  some  of  the  representa- 
tives of  the  Gabirol-group  the  motif  of  attributes 
blooms  forth  new  variations  as  an  artistic  literary 
motif  of  composition. 

No  details  could  be  given  in  this  outlook.  But  the 
foregoing  will  suffice  to  confirm  our  general  thesis 
that  the  development  of  Jewish  thought  in  biblical 
times    was    decisively    preformative    and    forcefully 


THE  POST-ESRANIC  PERIOD  301 

directive  for  all  future  developments.  Historical 
events  and  relations  continuously  brought  new  ele- 
ments and  new  motifs  in  the  evolution  of  thought, 
but  the  basic  tendencies  of  the  spiritual  currents  in 
speculative  thoughts  and  cultural  manifestations 
remained  the  same.  And  this  can  be  shown  also  of 
the  essential  formations  of  modern  times. 

The  full  treatment  of  any  one  of   these   periods 
require  s  a  book  for  itself. 


BIBLE  REFERENCES 


THORA. 


Index;  XV-XXXIII:  XXXV-XLII: 

E:   Index:  XXXVI-XLI: 

J:  Index:  XXXVI-XLI; 

JE:  Index:  XXXVI-XLII; 

h:  Index:  XXXV-XXXVI: 

PC:  Index;  XXXV:  XXXVIII-XLII: 

D:  Index;  XLII; 

LV  Index;  XLII: 

Special  Sources:  XXXVI;  XLII. 

GENESIS. 

Book:   xxxv-xxxviii;    I-XI:    117.201-209;     I,    l-II.    4 
1.2.26.2"      187.2       ..-      []     "      205;    111:201;    1-5:    201 
288;  22:  48.50.101.206.288;  T      ':       202     17-22     209    2 1    161 

26:  203;  V,   1:  81-82     24     207;  VI:  4.64;   1-4:   171.187.2 

3:  50;  5:  48;  6:  200.229:  9-17:  190;  VIII,  20-22  2  3  IX.  5.6 
187.197:201'.:  209;  X,  St.:  209:  XI:  5:  1-9:209:6:4*:  XII.  1  25 
XV:  5.27.25:  2-S:  29;  13f.:30:  XVI.  7-15:  44:  XVII:  191;  1:  191 
XVIII:  31.44:  23-32:  177:  XIX:  31-44:  30-38:  161:  XX 
49:  7:  240;  30-55:  4:  XXI.  17-1:  44  XXII:  64:  11-18  — 
XXXI,  29:  49;  XXXI 1  XXXIV:  191:  XXXVII 

50;  XXXVIII:  173  2-7  I '_-:-.  ::  31 :  44:  XLII  X  :.  XLIV 
29.31:50;  XLVII.  4:  181;  XLVIII.  15.16:  44. 

EXODUS 

Book  .-xl:    III.    1-6:    44:    13-15:    9:    IV.   1-9.24-2 

44:  VII-XIV:  188;  XII:  xxi:  XIII:  xx[:  XIX.  16-19  -" 
XX-XXIII:  xuxL5.72  XX  :  :-  II  204  18  -"  20-32 
19-20:  23:  5.  M    .-  XXI-XXII:  85;  XXI    2S-25     -:     X 

14:  185;  17:  46;  20:  57;  XXIII.  6:  78     -•:.     :"      13     !  13.14 
17-1-     ft!      II  18      W      18  19:    119:    20-21:    1.13.14     . 
22:  119:  2:  1-     ::    XXIV     15-18     192;  XXV-XXX] 
XXV.  9:  200.229;   22     181     -       .       229     XX  -       229 

XXVII,  8    .       ;:-    XXVIII,  36:  202;XXIX     "  I    KXX1 

3:  187  13-1":  204;  XXXII.  10:  25:  14:  185;  XXXIII  233 
6.17-19:78     18.19.22      119      20-2        -     -  XXXIV:    xx.xxi 

233     :"      L8;   6.7:   13;    17:  64:   29-35:     192      XXX     -XL 
31t\:  187 


304  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


LEVITICUS. 

Book:xl-xli;  I-VII:   89;   I-XVI:  xxi;  I,  1:  188;  IV-V:  196; 

IX,  22-24:  193;  X,  3:  187;  XI,  44.45:  203;  XVII-XXVI:  xxi. 
210;  XVIII,  21:  203;  XIX,  1.8.12:  203;  XX,  3.7.8.26:  203; 
6:  188;  XXII,  2-9.10.32:  203;  XXV,  17.23:  204;  XXVI:  xxii; 
XXVII:  xxi. 

NUMBERS. 

Book:  xvii.xxi.xli-xlii;  VI,  23-VII,  If.:  193;  VI,  24-27 
29;  VII,  89:  188;  XI,  24-29:  44;  XII:  47;  1-8:  44;  6-8:  45 
XV,  22-31:  195;  37f.:  xxi;  XVI,  3.22:  187;  30.33:  50;  XX-XXIV 
49;  XX,  12.13:  187;  XXI,  8.9:  44;  9:65;  14:  81;  XXII:  47 
20-35:  44;  22.23:  120;  XXV,  11-13:  195;  XXVH,  16:  187 
XXVIII,  11:  187;  XXXV,  16-21:  197. 

DEUTERONOMY. 

Book:  Index.xvii.xxi.xlii.20.22.23.46-48.57-60.72.74.79.83-87 
190.215.217;  I-IV:  xxi;  IV,  8-44:  114;  19:  136;  V-VIII:  60 
V-XI:  xxi.74;  V-XXVI:  23;  V,  4.5.19-23:  47;  8:  73.77;  9:  58 
26:  49;  VI,  4:  41;  5:  84;  9-18:  77;  VII,  1-5:  20;  5:  73;  VIII 
7-20:  77;  10:  41;  11-18:  49.60;  IX-XI:  60;  IX,  1:  77;  14:  23 

X,  17-20:  59;  XI,  26f.:  49.60;  XII:  73;  XII-XXVI:  xxi.60.77 
XIII,  2-6:  47.48;  12:  85;  XIV,  1-21:  60;  21.29:  59;  XV,  12 
114;  XVI,  1-17:  73;  11-14:  59;  18f.:  86;  XVII,  8-13:  86;  12.13 
85;  16:  59;  17-20:  73;  XVIII,  9-13:  58;  9-22:  47;  18:  104;  21.22 
48;  XIX,  20:  85;  XX,  10-20:  58;  XXI,  21:  85;  XXIII,  6:  49 
8.9:  59;  XXIV,  9:  23;  14.17:  59;  16:  58;  19-22:  59;  XXVI,  5 
181;  5-13:  59;  XXVII:  xxi.169;  XXVIII:  xxi.23.49.58.72.74 
20:  19;  XXIX-XXXIV:  xxi;  XXIX,  3:  104;  5:  136;  XXX,  2 
45;  XXXII,  51:  187;  XXXIV,  9:  187. 

JOSHUA. 
Book:    xvi.xx.32;    V,    13-14:    202;    X,    13:    81.120;   XXII, 
17-20:  195;  XXIV:  35;  19:  32;  26:  67. 

JUDGES. 
Book:  xvi. 18.32;  II,  1-5:  44.45;  V,  4.5.23:45;  VI,  11-24:  44; 
22:  8;  23.24:  195;  24:  194. 

1  SAMUEL. 

Book:  xvi.38;  II,  25:49;  III,  1-4:  44;  V,  1:  44;  VII,  2:44;IX, 
1:  44;  X,  5:  78;  12:  239;  16.20.22:  44;  XV,  23:46;  XVI,  15-23: 
78;  XVIII,  6.7:  78;  XIX,  9:  78;  20-24:  44;  XXI,  12:  78;  XXII, 
15:  44;  XXIII,  2-12:  44;  XXV,  26.33.34.39:49;  29:  51;  XXVH, 
3.6.9.21:  46;  XXVIII,  6-22:  44;  6.15:  122;  XXX,  7.8:  44. 

2  SAMUEL. 

Book:  xvi.38;  I,  17.18:  81;  II,  1:44;  V,  19-24:  44;  VI,  3-12: 
44;  13-17:  78;  VIII,  18-29:  32;  XIX,  36:  206;  XXIV:  120.263; 
13:  170;  16.17:  44.202;  17:  120. 


BIBLE  REFERENCES  305 


1  KINGS. 

Book:  xvi.38;  II,  6.9;  50;  III:  9;  5f.:  46;  IV,  11-13:  79 
VI,  13f.40f.:  76;  VIII,  6-12:  44;  XI,  41:  81;  XII,  32.33:  66 
XIII:  44;  18:  44;  XVII-XXII:  44;  XVII,  21-22:  51;  XVIII,  37 
49;  XIX,  7.11.12:  44;  10-14:  195;  XX,  31:  57;  XXII,  19-22:  44. 

2  KINGS. 

Book:  xvi.38;  I-IX:  44;  I,  15:  44;  II,  1-18:  44;  III,  19-25: 
58;  VI,  21-23:  57;  X,  18-28:  91;  XI,  25:  122;  XII,  17:  84;  XIV, 
9:  79;  25-27:  93;  XVI,  2.4.10-18:  69;  8:  24;  XVIII,  3-12:  69; 
4:  65;  XX,  12f.:  24;  XXI:  25;  XXII:  71.74;  XXIII:  71.74. 

ISAIAH. 

Book:  xvi.36-40.45-46.95;  I,  4:  38;  15:  252;  II,  2-4:  59.136 
22:  51;  III,  2.3:  39;  11.12:  128;  10-26:  77;  V,  9:  46;  14:  50.52 
VI:  37.65;  1.6-9:  38;  VII,  11:  50;  13:  39;  16:  206;  VIII,  1-4:  39 
4:  206;  10:  41;  19-20:  53;  19-21:  46;  IX,  5:  3C,.194;  16:  38;  XI 
2:  40.51;  10:  95;  XIII-XXX:  122;  XIII,  1-XIV,  23:  138;  XIV 
1:  179;  21:  147;  XVI,  5:  38;  XVII,  7:  141;  XVIII,  7:  95;  XIX 
1-4:  53;  18-25:  95;  XXII,  12-14:  53;  14:  46;  XXIII-XXVII 
152;  XXIV-XXVII:  138;  XXIV,  13-15:  179;  21:  155;  XXV 
3f.:  179;  8:  153;  XXVI,  14.19:  153;  XXVIII,  14-18:  50.52.53 
XXIX,  15:  149;  18.19:  38;  XXXI,  3:  51;  XXXIII,  2-5:  38 
XXXVI,  16:  79;  XXXIX,  15:  128;  XLff.:  xx.xxiv;  XL-XLVIII 
139.140-142;  XL,  1-5.12.14.18.21.26-28:  142;  2:  178;  19.20:  161 
26:  141;  XLI,  4.13.20:  142;  5-7:  161;  8.9:  181;  XLII,  1-4.19-22 
178;  5.6:  141;  5.9:  142;  XLIII,  1-7.10:  142;  1.2.7:  181;  16:  23 
XLIV,  1-5.21:  181;  2.6.8.24:  142;  9-20:  161;  21:  178;  XLIV 
28-XLV,  8:  179;  XLV,  1-7:  140;  3.4:  181;  5-7.9-12.14.18-24 
142;  6.7.12.18:  141;  20:  161;  XLVI,  1:  140;  1.6.7:  161;  9f. 
181;  XLVII,  10:  149;  9f.:  157;  XLVIII,  8:  157.241;  13:  141 
20:  178;  XLIX-LIX:  178;  XLIX:  179;  1-7:  178;  6:  181;  16:  161 
LI,  1.2.9.10:  181;  4-11:  179;  LII,  1.4.6.10.11:  179;  4:  181;  LII 
13-LIII,  12:  178;  LIII,  23:  179;  LIV,  7-10:  190;  9-  181;  17:  178 
LV,  4.5:  179;  14-15:  55;  LVI,  1-8:  179;  LVII,  5-8:  161;  16 
104.153;  LVIII,  1-14:  179;  LIX,  21:  159;  LIX,  17-LXVI,  24 
152;  LX,  1-7:  180;  LXI,  If.:  159;  5-9:  180;  LXII,  2:  180;  LXIII 
7f.:  181;  9:  155;  LXV,  3.7.11:  161;  11:  180;  LXVI,  1-4.12-24 
180;  3.17:  161. 

JEREMIAH. 

Book:  xvi.100-114;  I,  5-10:  103;  5-19:  104;  II,  3:  101 
4:  114;  27.28:  107;  III,  9.16.17:  107;  11.12:  114;  16:  70;  16.17 
113;  24:  110;  IV,  1.30:  107;  V,  9.31:  111;  19:  110;  20-22:  141 
VI,  13:  111;  16.21:  104;  20:  110;  VII:  109-112;  3.5-14.17-19.30 
31:  110;  4:  70;  4.8.9. 21ff.39:  111;  12-19.29.34:  107;  17.19:  101 
18:25;  24:  104;  IX,  12:  114;  22.23:  102;  24.25:  109;  X,  1-16 
107.136;  2.23:  104;  10.13.16:  103;  12:  141;  XI,  1-13:  70.71 
6:   114;   12:   110;  XII:   128;   If.:   105.125;   15.17:   113;  23:   104 


306  THE  PHILOLOPHV  OF  THE  BIBLE 


XIII,  10:  104;  11:  114;  XIV,  12:  110;  13-19:  103;  22:  107;  XV, 
15:  105;  XVI,  19:  113;  19.20:  107;  XVII:  109;  1.26:  114;  2:  107; 
19-27:  112;  26:  111;  XVIII,  12:  104;  18:  111;  23:  105;  XIX, 
5:  110;  5.13:  107;  XX,  7:  104;  12:  105;  14:  106;  XXI,  29  30: 
105;  XXII,  9.17.24:  114;  17-19:  106;  28:  107;  XXIII,  2.9-40- 
103;  5.6:  114;  9:  101;  11:  111;  17:  104;  24:  141;  25-32:  48;  33-39: 
122;  XXIV,  4:  114;  XXV,  13:  114;  29:  110;  XXVI,  4:  114; 
6:  107;  XXVII,  5f.:  108.112;  9:  48.103;  XXIX,  1.14.16:  114; 
5f.:  112;  8:48;  8.9:  103;  26:  239;  XXX,  2-4:  114;  29:  78;  34:  111; 
XXXI,  6.12.14:  111;  15.23:  101;  23:  110;  29.30:  105;  31-33: 
113;  31-36:  108;  XXXII,  15:  112;  31f.34:  110;  34.35:  107; 
XXXIII,  18:  111;  20-26:  108;  23:  114;  26:  101;  XXXIV:  109; 
8-16:  114;  8.18.19:  113;  18:  111;  XXXV:  109.113;  XXXVI: 
114;  4-6.27.28.33:  114;  XXXVIII:  108;  16:  104;  XLI,  5:  110; 
XLII,  10:  112;  XLIV,  2.3.5.8.15-29:  110;  8-25:  107;  15-26:  101; 
23:  114;  XLV,  1:  114;  XLVI-XLIX:  113;  XLVI,  16f.:  25; 
XLVII,  6:  113;  XLVIII,  31.36.47:  113;  XLIX,  6.39:  113;  L: 
138;  1.15:  141;  20.23:  114;  LI:  138;  5.60:  114;  11.51:  110;  19:  136. 

EZEKIEL. 

Book:  xvi.115-137.132. 171. 189.226.240.278.288. 293;  I:  116. 
120.130.201.208;  1:  115;  12.20.21:  123;  24.27.28:  119;  28:  190. 
191;  II,  2.9.10:  121;  12-14.22-24:  116;  III,  5f.:  135;  12.14.22.24: 
121;  17-21:  123.127;  18.19:  119;  IV,  4-6:  127;  V,  11:  130;  VI: 
130;  VII,  3.4.8.9.21.27:  119;  26:  112;  VIII-X:  116.120;  VIII, 
2.3:  203;  3:  121;  12:  125.149;  14-17:  117.130;  IX:  202;  3f.: 
203;  4.6:  202;  9:  125.149;  16:  118;  21:  119;  X:  120;  5:  119;  17: 
123;  20-22:  70;  XI,  1.5.24:  120;  13-20:  120;  19:  123;  22-24: 
116;  XII-XIV:  122;  XII,  10:  122;  24:  120;  XIII:  120;  17-21: 
117.120;  19:  118;  22.23:  119;  XIV,  2-11:  122;  3-7:  130;  6.14.20: 
168;  7:  135.137;  9:  124;  13-23:  127;  14:  117;  14.20:  190;  XVI: 
136;  3.45.46L:  117;  17:  130;  27.43.37:  119;  40.41:  133;  59-62: 
135;  XVIII:  122;  2-20:126;  2.25.29.30:  125;  2f.31:  124;  5-18:  133; 
6-12:  130;  21-28:  127;  XX,  1.40:  137;  3-31:  122;  5:  136;  5.9-41: 
135;  7.28-32.39:  130;  9.22.39.44:  118;  11-31:  133;  12-24:  204; 
30.43.44:  119;  XXI,  26-29:  121;  XXII,  4:  130;  6:  137; 
6-12.25-29:  133;  16:  135;  25.29:  121;  26:  70;  30.31:  127;  31:  119; 
XXIII:  136;  7-9:  134;  7.14-16.39:  130;  37-47:  133;  48.49:  117; 
XXIV,  13:  124;  14:  119;  16-23:  133;  21:  118;  22.23:  120;  XXV, 
3:  118.137;  XXVII,  17:  137;  XXVIII,  2-7.12.17:  121;  12.16.25: 
117;  14:  116;  22.25:  118;  25.26:  135;  XXIX,  13:  135;  XXXI:  129; 
8.9.16.18:  117;  XXXII:  129;  XXXIII:  122;  2-30:  123;  8.9.11: 
119;  9-20:  127;  15.25.26:  133;  17.20:  125;  24:  117;  32:  131; 
XXXIV-XXXIX:  152;  XXXIV,  12-24:  137;  20-23:  118;  25.30: 
135;  XXXVI,  10:  137;  17.19.31.32:  119;  21-27:  135;  25-27: 
123;  XXXVII:  121.125.129: 1-14: 123;  26.28:  118.135;  XXXVIII, 
16.23:  118;  16-28:  137;  23:  135;  XXXIX,  7.13.21.25.27:  118; 
7.21-23.27.28:  135;  12-20:  133;  23-25:  137;  29:  119;  XL-XLVIII: 
133;  XL,  1-XLIV,  5:  131;  XL,  18f.:  116;  39:  134;  XLI,  18-21: 


BIBLE  REFERENCES  307 


131;  20.21:  70;  21:  120;  XLII,  13.14:  133;  18:  134;  XLIII,  If.: 
116;  1-8:  120;  5.10:  121;  7.8:  118;  8.9:  130;  10-12:  131;  18-26: 
134;  18-27:  133;  XLIV,  6-31:  134;  7:  135;  7-31:  133;  XLV, 
9-28:  133;  XLVI,  1-18:  133;  19f. :  134;  19-XLVII,  2:  131;  XLVII, 
22.23:  135;XLVIII,  35:  120. 

HOSEA. 
Book:  xvi.32.34-36.93-94;  I-IV:  35;  I,  9:  94;  II,  10.15.18- 
19.21-25:  94;  19:  35;  III,  1:  94;  IV,  8:89;  11-14:  35;  17.19:  94 
V  13-93:  VI,  7:94;  VII,  8:94;  11 :  93;  VIII:  34;  1.2:94;  9:93 
11:  89;  14:  141;  IX,  7.8:  239;  X,  6:  93;  XI,  3.5.6:  93;  8.10:  94 
8-11:  35;  XII,  2:  93;  3-7:  34;  13.14:  35;  XIII,  9:  94;  14:  50.52 
XIV,  1-3:90. 

JOEL. 

Book:  xvi;  MI:  33;  III,  1:  48;  1.2:  159;  IV,  9-12:  136. 

AMOS. 
Book:  xvi.32.33-34.91-93;  I,   1:  33;  3.6.9:  92;   II,   1.3.41.: 
92;  4:  91;  7:  33;  III,  2:91;  IV,  2:  33;  V,  14-15:  92;  25:  111;  VI, 
lf.5:  78;  8-14:  34;  VII,  1-IX,  4:  33-34;  VII,  12:  33;  15.92;  IX,  2: 
50.52;  11-12:92. 

OBADJAH. 

Book:  xvi;  I:  168;  10.18:  181. 

JONAH. 

Book:  xvi.138.139.166.181-186.226.251.269.285;  I:  183.252; 
6:  182;  7.9:  183;  9-16:  184;  II:  252;  II,  Mil,  2:  184;  II,  10: 
184;  III,  3-10:  182.185;  IV:  272;  1-11:  185;  11:  206.252. 

MICAH. 
Book:  xvi;  II,  11:  46;  III,  5-12:  46;  IV,  1-3:  95.136;  5: 
135;  V,  11:  46;  VII,  16.17:136. 

NAHUM. 
Book:  xvi.122;  II:  182;  1-3:  137;  III:  182. 

HABAKKUK. 
Book:  xvi.122;  I:  125.128;  II:  128;  14:  179. 

ZEPHANIAH. 
Book:  xvi;  I,  9:  175;  12:  149;  12f.:  128;  II,  10.11:  95;  III, 
5L:  128;  8.9:  95;  13-15:  182. 

HAGGAI. 
Book:  xvi;  II,  11-14:  180. 

ZECHARIAH. 
Book:  xvi.122;  I-VIII:  138.155;  I,  8:  159;  III,  1.2:  155; 
If.:  203;  1-12:  180;  4:  46.112;  IV,  1:160;  V:  169;  If.:  160;  VI, 
If.:  160;  15:  180;  VIII,  13:  137;  20f.:  180;  X,  2:  159;  6:  137; 
11:  181;  XI:  94;  7-9:  94;  XII,  1-XIII,  6:  152;  XII,  8:  155; 
XIII,  2:  161;  2-6:  159;  4:  240;  XIV:  152;  9.16-21:  180;  19:  233. 


308  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


MALACHAI. 
Book:  xvi.138;  I,  2:  181;  3.4:  168;  6-14:  180;  II,  8.10:  181; 
llf.:  168;  12-15:  180;   17:  128;  III,  1:  155;  13-21:  148;  14-18: 
128;  17-21:  152. 

PSALMS. 

Book:  xvi.xvii.222.229-252.230.259.268.269.271.279.281.282. 
285.288.293;  Elohim  Psalms:  32;  I,  3-6:  242;  II:  236;  III:  239; 
IV,  2:  252;  V,  2-4:  252;  VI,  6:  244;  VII,  9.10:  232;  12f.:  242; 
VIII:  232;  IX,  18:  245;  X,  4-6.11-13:  232;  16:  250;  XI,  4  5: 
232;  5.6:  242;  XIV,   1.2:  232;  XV,  230.251;  XVI:  230;  8-11: 
245;  XVII,  14:  242.243;  14.15:  245;  XVIII:  236;  16:  245;  XIX: 
230.251 ;  XX:  236;  XXI :  236;  11 :  242;  XXII,  27.30:  245;  XXIII : 
232;    1.2:   243;    XXIV:    230.251;    XXV,    12:    242.245;    XXVI, 
6.7:  252;  13:  245;  XXVII,  6:  252;  23:  232;  XXVIII,   1:  245; 
2:  252;  XXIX:  230;  XXX,  4.10:  244;  5:  252;  XXXI,  6.18:  245; 
XXXIII:  230;  XXXIV,  6:  252;  7:  251;  9:  237;   13:  241;   17: 
242;   XXXV,    5:   237;    17:   245;   XXXVI:    7:    252;   8-10:    245; 
XXXVII,  9.10.22-28:  242;  9.22.34.38:  251;  XXXVIII,  lf.7.16.25: 
243;  37.38:  242;  XXXIX,  13:  252;  XL,  2-12:  252;  5:  232;  XLII, 
3:  245;  4.11:  232;  5-9:  252;  XLIII,  3.4:  252;  XLV:  230.236; 
21:  234;  XLVII:  250;  6.7:  251;  XLVIII:  250;  XLIX,  5:  251; 
6f.:  243;  8:  252;  9.15.16:  245;  21:  247;  L:  252;  12:  241;  14:  245; 
LI:  230.243;  13:  240;  17-21:  252;  LII,  7:  242;  LIII,  2:  232;  LIV, 
5:  232;  8:  252;  LV,   16.24:  245;  LVI,   13:  252;  LVII,  9:  251; 
12:  232;  LVIII,  4:  241;  LIX:  250;  LX,  8:  240;  LXI:  236;  6-9: 
252;   LXII,   12:  240;   LXIII:  236;  3:  240;  3-6:  252;  26:  251; 
LXV,  2-5:  252;  7:  232;  LXVI,  8:  250;  13-20:  252;  16-20:  241; 
LXVII:  230.250;  LXVIII:  242;   2.5:  240;   2.8.10:  245;   29-33: 
250;  30-34:  252;  LXIX,  14.31.32:  252;  28:  241;  LXX,  9:  243; 
LXXI,  22:  251;  LXXII:  230.236;  5.9-15:  252;  LXXIII,   llf.: 
232;    16.17.22:  247;    17:   240;   LXXIV:   236.240.242;   7-9:   240; 
11-18.22:  232;  LXXV,  3-8:  232;  LXXVI-LXXXI:  242;  LXXVI: 
250;  12:  252;  LXXVII:  236;  14t.:  232;  LXXVIII:  236;  8.19f.: 
232;  39:  244;  LXXX,  2f.:  203;  5:  252;  LXXXI:  236;  2.3:  251; 
13:   241;   LXXXII,   8:   250;    LXXXIII:   236.242;    25.26:    245; 
LXXXIV,  3:  245;  9-11:  252;  LXXXVI,   14:  232;  LXXXVII: 
242;  LXXXVIII:  230;  4:  245;  4-7.11.12:  244;  65:  243;  LXXXIX: 
232.236.242;  4:  250;  7.8.11:  237;  20:  240;  49:  245;  XC,  3.15: 
243;  4:  232;  XCI,  11:  237;  XCII:  232;  4:  251;  10:  247;  XCIII: 
230;  XCIV-XCIX:  250;  XCIV,  7-11:  232;   12.18:  243;  XCV: 
230.242;   2:  252;   2.4:  232;  XCVI,   5:   250;   XCVII,   5.6:   251; 
7:  250;  XCVIII,  17.18:  243;  XCIX,  1:  237;  6.7:  240;  C:  230; 
1:  251.252;  CI:  236;   1-3:  250;  8:  251;  CII,  2:  242;  13.26-29: 
232;    17-33:    252;   CIII:   242;    1-4.14-17:   245;    14-16:    244.288; 
17.18:  242;  19f.:  232;  20-21:  237;  CIV:  230.232;  3.4:  237;   15: 
243;  24:  239;  29.30:  244;  CV:  236.242;  20:  240;  CVI,  35:  247; 
44:  252;  CVII,  21-32:  252;  CVIII,  3:  251;  CIX,  7:  252;  8-15: 
242;  13.15:  251;  CXI:  235.239;  6-10:  235;  CXII:  235;  CXIII: 
230.251;  CXIV:  230;  CXV,  3f.:  232;  5-8:  250;  27:  244;  CXVI, 


BIBLE  REFERENCES  309 


7-9:    245;    12-19:    252;    CXVII:    230.251;    CXIX:    230    (Dart) 
62.14M48:   252;    126:   70;   CXXII:   230.236.250;    1-4:   252;   8 
237;  CXXVII:  250;  3:  242;  CXXVIII,  12:  242;  CXXX,  2-6 
252;    CXXXI:    230;   CXXXII:    236.250;    CXXXIV:    230.252 
CXXXV-CXXXVII:    242;    CXXXV,    6f.:    232;    15-17:    250 
CXXXVI:  232;  CXXXVII,  2.4:  251;  7:  168;  CXXXVIII,  2 
252;  4:  251;  CXXXIX:  232;  CXLI,  1-2:  252;  CXLIII,  7:  245 
CXLIV,  4:  244;  7.8:  250;  CXLV:  235;  CXLVI,  4:  244;  CXLVII 
230.232;    7:    251;    19.20:    250;    CXLVIII:    230.232;    1.2:    237; 
CXLIX,  3:  251;  CL:  230;  3-5:  251;  4:  160. 
PROVERBS. 
Book:  xvi.222.229-252.232.268.282.288.293;   II,   7-22:   231; 
16f.:  243;  18.19:  246;  22:  251;  III:  231;  5-7.19.20:  247;  11.12.31: 
243;  12.19.20:  231;  19.20:  239;  IV,  10-19:  243;  18.19:  231;  V, 
3f.:  243;  5.6:  246;  21:  231.233;  VI,  15:  243;  27:  246;  VIII,  12-14. 
22-31:  247;   14-21:  243;   21-31:   239;   21^31.35:   231;   IX,    13f.: 
243;   18:  246;  X:  231;  XI,   14:  243;  31:  231;  XII,  5  13:  242; 
XIII,  22:  242;  25:  243;  XIV,  11:  242;  17.21.22.29.31:  237;  27.32: 
246;  XV,  3.11:  233;  8.29:  252;   11.18:  53;   11.24:   246;   16.17: 
242;   18:   237;  XVI,   2.3.9.11.33:  233;   5.6.10-16.32:  237;   6.19: 
243;  25:  242;  XVII,  1:  243;  3:  233;  5:  242;  5.11:  237;  XVIII, 
10:  237;  XIX,  3:  240;  11.17:  237;  21:  233;  XX,  1:  243;  7:  242; 
8.22.26-28:  237;   11:  240;   12.24.27:  233;   17.21:  247;  25:  252; 
27:  246;  XXI,  1.2.30.31:  233;  3.27:  252;  13.14.21:  237;  16:  246; 
17:  243;  XXII,    17.18:  242;  30:  243;  XXIV,    12.13:  247;    14: 
242;  19:  243;  XXV,  2.3:  243.247;  2-4.15:  237;  XXVIII,  8:  242; 
8.13.20:  237;  XXIX,  4:  252;  4.14:  237;  XXX,   1-5:  231.239; 
2-6:  247;  9:  236;  19:  232;  XXXI,  1-9:  237;  4:  243. 

JOB. 

Book:  xvi. 132. 138.139.142-181. 149.151. 161-169.171. 176-177 
182.239.240.242.247.248.279.281.286.290.293;  I:  155;  5:  168; 
II:  155;  III-XXXVII:  143;  III,  8:  150;  IV,  6-16:  152;  7-12: 
144;  12-21:  158;  13:  159;  16-18:  155;  19-21:  153;  V,  4-25:  147, 
17:  145;  18:  148;  VI,  6.10:  150;  7.10:  158;  10:  155;  VII,  1.21; 
150;  8f.21:  153;  VIII,  4.5.13.20.21:  144;  7:  147;  IX,  5-13:  155: 
13.22:  150;  X,  4:  152;  9.12.21.22:  153;  14:  150;  XI,  4-14:  144; 
12-15:  148;  XII,  7f.:  155;  9-13:  143;  10:  153;  27:  168;  XIII; 
15:  150;  XIV,  4.17.21.22:  150;  10-22:  154;  11-22:  153;  XV,  14.15: 
145;  20-27:  146;  28-34:  144;  XVI,  9-17:  150;  22:  153;  XVII, 
5:  150;  13-16:  153;  XVIII,  5-15: 144;  17-21;  147;  XIX,  6.11.21.22: 
150;  25:  173;  XX,  3:  152;  5f.:  144;  8:  159;  10:  147.148;  12f.: 
151;  20:  146;  XXI,  5f.l2:  144.146;  9:  150;  27:  148;  XXIII, 
12:  150;  XXIV:  150;  XXV,  2-6:  145;  3.7-12:  155;  6:  153;  XXVII- 
XXVIII:  144;  XXVII:  151;  3:  153;  17:  242;  XXIX-XXXI: 
169;  XXX,  19-23:  153;  31:  160;  XXXI,  35:  158;  XXXII- 
XXXVII:  144;  XXXII,  8:  154;  XXXIII,  1:  150;  4:  154;  13f.: 
159;  23:  155;  XXXIV,  5f.:  148;  14-15:  154;  XXXVII,  9:  152; 
XXXVIII-XLI:  143.157;XXXVIII,  1-XL,  1-6:  158;  XXXVIII, 
39-XXXIX,  30:  157;  XXXVIII,  1:  143.152;  4-38:  157;  7:  155; 
17:  156;  XL:  157;  XLI:  157;  XLII,  10-17:  185;  13:  173;  16:  143. 


310  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


SONG  OF  SONGS. 
Book:  xvi. 80. 166.222.288. 

RUTH. 
Book:  xvi.138.166.169-173.174.175.177.182.226;  I,  1-5:  170 
8.16.20.21:  171;  16:  113;  II,  1-23:  171;  III,  1-18:  172;  IV,  1-22 

ECHAH. 
Book:  xvi.81. 138.288;  I,  18-22:  149;  II,  1-5:  137;  9.14:  160 

III,  1-66:  149;  IV,  13:  160;  21.22:  168. 

KOHELETH. 
Book:  xvi.222.262.268. 278.281-291. 293;  I:  281-282;  13.16.17 
282;  II:  281-282;  1-3.9.10.12-16.19-26:  282;  18-21:  286;  III 
10-17;  285;  18-21:  287;  21:  246;  IV,  8.13-15:  286;  17:  285;  V,  1-6 
285;  VI,  1.2.10:  286;  VII,  15.18:  285;  20:  286;  VIII,  4.11-13 
286;  8:  287;  12-14.17:  285;  IX,  1-3:  284;  1.5.11.12:  285;  1.12 
286;  4-10:  287;  X,  16-20:  282;  XI,  5:  287;  XII,  1-7:  287;  10-14 
288. 

ESTHER. 
Book:  xvi. 166.173-176.182.222.261;  II,   10.20-23:  175;  III, 
4.5:  175;  8:  176;  V,  8:  175;  VI,  1-11:  175;  VII,  3:  175;  VIII,  15: 
175;  IX,  1.5:  176. 

DANIEL. 
Book:    xvi.6.222. 261-264.266.278-281. 293;    II,    11-23:    263: 

IV,  5.15.31:  263;  V,  11:  263;  VI,  11.12:  252;  21:  263;  XII:  279; 
2.3:  279. 

EZRA. 
Book:   xvi.138.222.261-277;    II,   62.63:   267;    III,    10:    276; 
IV,  3:  262;  V,  11.12:  263;  VI,  9.10:  263;  18:  262;  VII,  26:  269; 
VIII,  21-24:  265;  35:  262;  IX:  169;  10:  269;  X:  169. 
NEHEMIAH. 
Book:  xvi.138.222.261-277;  VII,  5:  81;  64.65:  276;  IX,  2: 
169;  X,  31:  169;  XII,  27.45-47:  276;  XIII,  1.23-30:  169. 

1  CHRONICLES. 

Book:  xvi.79.81.222.261-277;  IV,  10:  274;  18f.:  276;  V,  17: 
81.262;  20.22:  274;  VI,  16.17:  274;  18f.:  276;  41:  262;  IX,  1: 
262;  1-3:  269;  33:  276;  X,  13f.:  274;  31:  269;  X,  13-XI,  1-8: 
274;  XI,  1:  263;  XIII,  23-30:  269;  XV,  16.19-29:  276;  XVI, 
4-7.42:  276;  XXI:  44.120.263;  16:  120.202;  XXII,  27:  81;  XXV, 
1-3:  275;  XXVII,  24:  81;  XXVIII,  9.18.19:  263;  XXIX,  11.12: 
263;  29:  81. 

2  CHRONICLES. 

Book:  xvi.79.81.222.261-277;  I,  10:  263;  II,  5:  263;  III, 
10-14:  263;  V,  12.13:  276;  VI,  8.30:  263;  VII,  6:  276;  IX,  11: 
276;  29:  81;  X,  15:  265;  XII,  15:  81;  XVI,  9:  263;  XVIII,  19: 
265;  XIX,  5-11:  86;  XX,  34:  81;  XXI,  12:  170;  XXII,  13:  276; 
XXIII,  18:  276,  XXIV,  27:  81;  16:  265;  XXVI,  22:  81;  XXIX- 
XXXI:  69;  XXIX,  25-30:  276;  XXX,  25:  81;  XXXII,  8:  263; 
19.32:  81;  31:  265;  XXXIII:  25;  XXXV,  3:  70;  15:  276;  21.22: 
265;  XXXVI,  20-22:  261. 


INDEX 


Aaron  (Ahron):  67.195.240. 

Abel:  190. 

Abimelech:  5. 

Abodah:257. 

Abomination:  xxxiii. 

Aboth:  256.257. 

Abraham:    xx.6.23.27.29.30.117. 

177.181.190.191.202.203. 
Abrahamites:  1.17f.43. 66.80.82. 
Abrogation:  xxv.xxxi.295. 
Academy:  297.299. 
Account  (Retribution):  147. 
Acrostic:  235. 
Action  (-Thought):  241. 
Adam:  xvii.82.208.261. 
Administration:  276.277. 
Admonition   (Thochahah):  xxif. 

19.49.56.58.60.72.200.211. 
Adonay:  119.120.163.234. 
Adult  (Retribution):  215. 
Adultery :  86. 
Agadah:  233.292.297. 
Agag:  176. 
'Agalim.  65-67. 
Agnoia:  282. 
Ahabhah  Rabbah: 253. 
Ahasver:  174. 
'Akiba:  166.219.295. 
Alexandria:  221.260.292. 
Al-hat-Tzadikim  (Sopherim)  259. 
Amalek:  176. 
Ammon:  5.108.171. 
Amos:    xvi.xx.32. 33-34.38.39.49. 

52.91-93.279. 
Amoz:  xxiv. 

Andreia  (Card.  Attn):  40. 
Angels:     xxvi.3f.7.14.19-23.27ff. 

38. 41. 44. 48f. 64. 68f.  73.75.87. 

98. lOOf. 107. 115-121. 130. 133. 

136.145.155.160.163.181.187. 

191. 195. 197. 201ff.207. 209.211 . 

223f.  237f.  253f.  258.  262-265. 

278.285.292.295.296. 


Animal:80.86. 185.287  (Principle) 
Anthropomorph:  38.121.299. 
Antinomism:  113.259.295. 
Anti-Semitism  (A. -Jewish): 

xxviii.xxxif. 
Anu:  2. 

Aphorism:  248:297.298. 
Apis:  60. 

Apocrypha:  152.289.292. 
Arabic:  299. 
Arabists:  xxiv. 
Aram:  36. 

Arboth  Moab'  xviii. 
Architecture  (Art):  76. 
Argument    (Proof):    82.83. 107f. 

230L285-288. 
Aristotle:  298.300. 
Arithmetical  Unity:  42. 
Ark:    67-70.73.75.184.188.192. 

212. 
Art:   4.76-78. 106f.130.161f.163 

(Liter.)  =  189. 198.208.     (Arts) 

268.272f.297. 
Ascension  (of  Moses) :  292. 
Asheroth:  63.69. 
Ashrei  (Happy):  227. 
Ashur:  3.69. 
Asia:  36. 

Assimilation:  175.291. 
Assyria    (-n):    xxiv.2.3.24.36.64. 

69.93.95.291. 
Astral  (Motif) :  23. 
Astronomical  (Motif):  65. 
Atheism:  149-151.157.213.290. 
Attributes:     3.6f.l3.26.28.29.33. 

34.39.40f.79.102.108.118f.125. 

128.131. 140f.147f.154.161. 163. 

167. 170.177. 181. 185f.l89. 191. 

193.203. 222. 232f.235.249. 256. 

263.295.298.300. 
Authenticity    (of  Torah):   xxiv. 

xxviiiff. 
Authority      (-ative) :     xiiif  .xixf . 

xxvi.xxxt.60.115.185f.216.222f. 

249ff.259.264.267. 270.273-276. 


312 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


277  (secular).  288-292.294.296. 
300. 


B. 


Ba'al,     im:     35.64.68.92.94.195 

(Peor). 
Babli:xvii.70.206. 
Babylon,   ia    (-n):   xxiv. If. 24.25 
(Neo-).   50   (Liter.)   53.64.66. 
101  (N.).  106.112.116.130.159 
(N.).       160f.182.190.199.200f. 
207.248.263f.291      (N.).     297 
(Academies).  298. 
Back  (of  God) :  208. 
Balaam:  49. 

Bamoth  (High  Places) :  69f. 
Ban  (Khareth):  213. 
Band  (of  Korah) :  195. 
Barth,  Jacob:  xxiv. 
Baruch,     the     Scribe:     114.292 

(Book). 
Bel  (Marduk):  140. 
Belief  (Creed):  61. 
Benedictions :  255 .  256 .  258 .  259 

(Order  of  the  Day). 
Bereshith:  295.296.298. 
Berlin:  xxiv. 
Bethel:  29.65-67.69. 
Bethlehem:  171. 
Bible  Classes:  xxix.xxxi.xxxiii. 
Biblical  Criticism:  xiv.xv-xxxiii. 

xvii  (Traditional). 
Biblical  Law  (Written  L.):  xxx. 
Bildad  (Job) :  144ff. 
Binding  force  (of  Law):  204.258. 

274. 
Birchath  Cohanim  (Pr.  Bless.): 

257. 
Birth  (of  Nation) :  262. 
Bliss:  245.246. 
Blood  Revenger:  86.197. 
Boaz:  171-173. 
Book  of  the  Covenant:  xiv.xxiff. 

7f.19.22.26.40f.46.48.56.59f.64. 

69f.  76. 85-89. 139.161.186.188. 

190.199-201.209-211.214-217. 

222-226.229.249. 
Book  of  the  Dead  (Egypt):  50. 
Book  of  Holiness  (BH) :  xxi.  186f. 


199. 200-209. 210.212.216.221f. 

226. 
Book  of  Jecirah :  298. 
Book  of  JHVH:80. 
Book  of  Jubilees:  279.292. 
Bor  (Sheol):  129. 
Brith    Shalom    (Cov.,    Shalom): 

195. 


Cabbalah:  298.300. 

Cabhod    (Khabod):    37.119.120 

187ff.  192.193.208. 
Cain:  190.202. 
Calendar  (Reform) :  66. 
Calf,  Calves  (Golden):  34.65-66. 

68. 
Canaan  (Palestine):  2.63.77.136. 

291. 
Canon:   166.219.224.279.288-290 

(Close).  292. 
Capital  Crimes:  197. 
Capital    Punishment:    xli.86.87. 

133 .  134. 197 .  199 .  209.212.214. 

269. 
Cardinal    Virtues    (Attributes) : 

40.227.228.235.243.263.293. 
Carving  (Art) :  76. 
Causa  finalis,  movens:  238. 
Center  (Judaism):  297. 
Centralization:    65.68.78.87.249. 

253. 
Change  (Abrogation) :  xxv. 
Character  (Moral) :  xxxiv. 
Chebar  (River):  131. 
Cherub,  im:  xl.65-66.68.69.70.73. 

74.117.119.120.130.131.187. 

202.203.208.212.263.264.267. 
Chosen  People  (Selection) :  13. 
Christian:  xix.259. 
Christianity:    200.217.294.297. 

299. 
Christology:  178.295. 
Chronicles:  xvi.222. 261-277. 
Chronology:  163.258.261. 
Circumcision:     109.133.179.191. 

202. 
City  of  JHVH:  109.110.119.209 
(Cities). 


INDEX 


313 


Civil  Communion:  112.160. 
Civil  Law:  296. 
Civilization:  208.291. 
Classic:  162  (Liter.).  300 (Philos.) 
Closed:      239      (Proph.).      289 

(Canon).  298  (Talm.). 
Cloud   (Cabhod,  Rainbow):  28. 

119.190.192.193.197.240. 
Cognitive  Power:  156. 
Cohen  (-Israelite):  270. 
Commentary:  xviii.xxii.298. 
Communal    (Retribution):    183- 

184. 
Community:  193. 
Composition  (Liter.):  163.164. 
Compromise:        98.196.209-217. 

222.225    (New).    257.263.269. 

273.275. 
Conception  of   History:   xix.21- 

26.29.83.121.136-137.189-195. 

204.209.210.224.266.267.273. 

274.293. 
Confession  of  Faith:  60.113.169 

(Sin).        171.179.183.252-260. 

273.291. 
Confirmation:  xxxiii. 
Congregation:  xxi. xxxiii.  192. 
Conscience:  146.243. 
Conservative:   xxiii.115.137.223. 
Constitution  (Ideal):  99.198.217. 

228.293. 
Contradiction  (Harmonization) : 

xviii.xxii.xxv. 
Conversion  (Proselyte):  174. 
Cosmogony:      6.82.101.116.118. 

181.201.202. 
Cosmology,  -ical:  6.37.53.82.97. 

101-108.115-118.120.124.140. 

141.152.154-158.162.164.180. 

203.211.228.231-235.238.239. 

(Psalms).  246.258.263.285f. 
Cosmological  Proof:  141.156.158. 

162.164     (Ethical).     232.233. 

246  285f. 
Cosmopolitan:  175. 
Counsel  (Heavenly):  264. 
Court:  116.197. 
Covenant:   15-19.24.30.60.63.66- 

72.74.90.93    (of    Nations)-95. 


110.113-115.133.135.139.190 

(Noah).     191.195     (Pinehas). 

201.205.210.    Esra-Cov.:    138. 

154.161.162.185.188. 
Crafts:  208. 
Crayon  Work:  161. 
Creation     (Monotheistic):     xxi. 

xxvi.6.37.97.98.102-112.115- 

124.128.140-143.149.155.161- 

163.179-183.186-192.201-206. 

210-212.215.224.238-242.246- 

249.253-258.296. 
Creature:  235. 
Creed  (Dogma)  :xxvi.xxx. 61. 255. 

272. 
Crescas.  Hisdai:  v.xxx.xlii. 
Culture,    ral:     xiii.60-95.99.106- 

112.141.129-131.160-162.167. 

198.229.247-252.260.266-274. 

291.301. 
Cuneiform:  xxii. 
Customs:  99. 
Cyrus:  140. 


D. 


Dagon:  64. 

Daily  Prayer  (Liturgv,  Order  of 

the  Dav):  258. 
Dan:  65.66. 
Dancing:  76.78. 
Daniel:  xvi. 222. 261-277.278-281. 

293. 
Darkness  (Dualism):  140, 
Daughters:    3.207    (Adam).    77 

(Zion).  171  (Moab). 
David:     xvi.xvii.91. 114.137. 169. 

172-174.228.240.262.263.274- 

276. 
Day  of  Judgment:  135. 
Death     (Khareth):     156.213.53 

(Feast). 
Debher  (Magguepha):  170. 
Deborah:  45. 
Decalog:  64.67.256.259. 
Decorative    (Art):    107.130.198. 

208.212.215.268. 
Defense  of  Justice:  161.162.227. 

230.241.278.280.285-287. 


314 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Definition  (of  God).  35.39.40.55. 

59.102.118.183.187.235.257. 

258.263. 
Destruction:       138.240.250.256. 

261. 
Determinism    (Free    Will):    104. 

157. 
Deutero  Isaiah:  xvii.xx.xxi.140- 

142.143.148.157.159.285. 
Deuteronomy:  iv.xvii.xxi.xxii.19. 

20.40-42.44.46-48.57-60  63.67. 

(School).  71.74.83.85.90.95.97. 

105-108.112-117.133.159.161. 

163 .  168 .  186-191 .  194 .  197-199. 

205.214-217.222.224.226.238. 

249.255.256.263.270. 
Dialectics:  296-298. 
Dialog     (Philos.):     108.164.167. 

281.294. 
Diaspora:     175.176     (Program). 

255. 
Dietary  Law:  xxx.180. 
Difference  (North-South) :  68. 
Dinah:  191. 
Disposition:  105. 
District:  257.270. 
Doctrine  (Dogma):  223.248. 
Dogma:   xxvi.  164.258.260.279. 

280.292. 
Dortmund,  Germany:  xxv. 
Drama:  155.164-166.172. 
Drawing  (Art):  161. 
Dream  (Proph.):   45-47.103.146. 

150.158.159.188.265.285. 
Drinking  (Three  Passions):  282. 
Driver,  S.  R.:  xxxv. 
Dry  Bones:  123.279. 
Dualism  (Parsism):  140.295. 
Dynamic  Unity  (Monoth.):  42. 
Dynasty:  137.169.172.174.262. 

274. 

E. 

Ea:3. 

Eastern  School  (Philos.):  299. 
Eating  (Three  Passions):  282. 
Ebed  JHVH  (Servant):  112. 
Echah:  xvi.138. 
Eclecticism:  221.226.237. 


Edom:  108.168. 

Education    (Jewish):  xxvii.xxix. 

xxxiv. 
'Egel  (Golden  Calf) :  65-67. 
Egypt,  ian:    xviii.xxiv.28. 50.53. 

57.59.62.64.66.93.100.110.129. 

135.186.207.249.291. 
EHJH:  7.13f.28.39. 
Eight     Verses     (Last,     Torah): 

xvi.xvii. 
Eighteen  Benedictions  (Thephil- 

lah) :  256. 
EJ(JE):191. 

El:  8.-Kanna:  12.35.195.  -Shad- 
day:  119.191. 
Elephantine:  249. 
Eli:  241. 
Elihu    (Job):    144f.165.168.178. 

243. 
Elijah:  44.51.91. 
Elilim:40. 
Elimelech:  170. 
Eliphaz  (Job) :  144ff.165.168.178. 

243. 
Elisha:  44.91. 
Eloha:  143.163. 
Elohim:  8.13.28.33.34.64.182. 

190.191.202.234  (Psalms).  250. 

251.274.286. 
Elohist    (E):    xx.xxii.6.21-22.26. 

27-29.32.33.38.41.76.191.202f. 
Emanation:  238.296. 
End   (Justice):   144.164.166.172. 

173.197.205.242. 
England :  xix. 

Enoch:  51.207.279.292  (Book). 
Ephod:  xl. 
Ephraim:  94. 

Epicure,  ean:    231.283-286.290. 
Epigram:  39.236. 
Equality  (Stranger):  135. 
Erotic  (Sexual):  80.130.288. 
Eschatology:  49-59.106.125.129. 

150.151-154  (152:  Individual). 

188.207.244-249.266.278-281. 

286-288. 
Esra  (Ezra). 
Essentials  (Judaism,  Principles): 

256.258.260. 


INDEX 


315 


Esther:  xvi.  142. 166.173-176.222. 

261.288. 
Eternal  Life  (Immortality):  50. 

207. 
Eternity     (Attrib.):    36.39.221 

(Aspect).  232. 
Ethics,  cal:  2.6.27.41.55.97.101. 

103.107-109.118.120.133.141. 

143.154.156.158.164.204.211. 

228.231.233.235.236   (Political 

E.).  251.258.263.283.284. 
Eve:  206.208. 
Evil  (-Good):  38.78.105.140.141. 

149.206-209. 
Evolution  (of  Mind):  208. 
Evolutionary     Motif     (Attrib.) : 

32.182.234. 
Excavations  (Explor.):  17. 
Exemplum  Praesens:  238.251. 
Exile     (Golah):     98.99.115.136. 

160.198.248.261. 
Existence  (God) :  283. 
Exodus:  xviii.xxi.xxv.186. 
Expiation    (Sacrifice):    196.223. 

251. 
Explorations  (Excav.):xxii. 17. 78. 
Ezekiel,    ian    School:    xviii.112. 

115-137 .  140. 142.144.147f.152. 

155.160.163-165.169.177-182. 

186. 189.192. 200-212. 240f.257 . 

262 .  264 .  267.272.278f.288.293. 

295.300. 
Ezra     (Esra):     xxi.xxii.138.154. 

155.161f.185.209f.217-224.233f 

249.261-277.292  (Book  of  E.) 


F. 


Fable.  80-81. 

Face    (Art):    130    (Man).    208 

(God). 
Faith:  xxviii.xxix. 
False  Prophets:  47.121  (Dream). 
Famine:  170  (Magguephah). 
Fatum:    11.43.49.104.150.157. 

183. 
Femininism  (Religion):  121. 
Festivals:  255. 
Fight  (gods):  11. 


Final   Redaction   (Torah):  xvii. 

255.261      (Chronicles).      262 

(Daniel,  278).  298  (Talmud). 
Find  (Deut.):  71. 
Fire  (Heavenly):  xvii.70.75.187. 
First  Sin:  28.119.202. 
Five  Books  of  Moses  (Pent.):  71. 
Fish  (Jonah) :  184. 
Flesh     (-Spirit):    40.51.121.123. 

152.153. 
Flood:  184  (Ind.  Fl.).  190.203. 
Forehead  (Sign):  120.202. 
Foreign  Wives  (Interm.>>:  269. 
Forgiving  Sin  (Thirteen) :  194i 
Form  (Gov.,  Constit.):  228. 
Form  (Liter.):  80.107. 
Form  of  the  House  (Idea):  131. 
Formalism  (Legal):  109. 
Formula  (Attributes):  13.29.182. 

192-194.202.209.211.233-236. 
Fortitude  (Card.  Virt.) :  227. 
Forty  Years:  xviii.xxv. 
Free      (-Obligatory):      254.134 

(Off.). 
Free  Will  (Determ.,  Fatum):  12. 

42.43.48-49.82.83-85.104-105. 

123-129.157.188.205-208.241. 

256.265.286. 
Function  (Histor.) :  248.271.273. 


Gabirol  Group  (Philos.):  299-300 

Gabriel  (Name,  Angels) :  264. 

Gan-Eden  (Paradise):  117.246. 

Geburoth  (ThephiJlah):  256.258. 

Gehinnom  (Hell) :  246. 

Geiger,  Abraham:  xix.xxv. 

Gemini  (Twins) :  65-66. 

General  Retribution:  184. 

Generations  (Sin  Account) :  196. 

Geonic  Period:  298. 

Germany:  xix.xxv. 

Gersonides,  Levi  ben  G.:  132. 

Geschichte  der  juedishen  Philo- 
sophic v.vi.xxvi.xxvii.21.26. 
45.73.82.87.88  111.140.155.197 
210.227.234.253.271.282.286. 

Geulah  (Redemption,  Thephil- 
lah):258. 


316 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Giants  (Daughters) :  209. 
Glory  (Cabhod):  119. 
Gnomic:  239.241.247  250. 
God-Conception:  xxv.xxvi.2.6.7. 

10-13.22.26-42.35  (Defin.).  36. 

39-41.44.46.51-62.82.83.87.97. 

101.102.118.120.148     (Prob- 
lem).156-158.164.182.183(Uni- 

versal).     187.203.204.208-211. 

235-237 .  25  7 .  258 .  263-265 .  283. 

284.299. 
God  of  gods:  3.6.7. 
Gods  of  the  Nations  (Other  g.) : 

64. 
God-fearing  Man:  235. 
Golah  (Exile):  99.137. 
Golden  Calf  (Massechah):  xl.18. 

34  ('Agalim).  63. 
Gondashapur  (Philos.):  299. 
Good    (-Evil):    140.141.206.207. 

209  (Dualism).  245  (The  G.). 
Good  Kings:  68.72. 
Good  Tree  (War) :  58. 
Grace  (Mercy):  12. 
Graeco-Jewish    (Hellenism) :    v. 

131 .  205 .  221 .  235 .  244.246.268. 

269.276.279.292-295. 
Graetz,  Heinrich:  xxv. 
Graf:  xix. 

Great  Beth  Din:  276. 
Gr.  B.  D.  in  Hewn  Hall:  276. 
Great  Name  (Thirteen):  29.234. 
Greece:  291.297. 
Greek:     xxvii.129. 132. 155.221. 

226. 235 .  237 .  239 .  253.255.261. 

263 .  267 .  276 .  280 .  286.294.298. 
Guilt  (Sin,  -Merit):  169. 
Guilt-Offering  (Sin-O.):  134. 
Gymnasia:  250. 

H. 

Habakkuk:  122.125.128.148.159. 

Haggai:  138. 

Halachah    (Talmud):    130.174. 

180.296-298. 
Hallevi,  Jehudah:  v. 
Halo  (Cabhod)-  192. 
Haman:  174.176. 
Hammurabi:  66. 


Happy  (Ashrei):  227.230.231. 
236.243.281.284. 

Harbonah:  174. 

Hardening,  the  Heart  (Free 
Will):  xxxix.49. 188. 

Harmonization  (Interpret.) :  xvii- 
xxv.214-217.221. 

Hatoren:  21.171. 

Hear,  O  Israel  (Sh'ma') :  42. 

Heathen  (Pagan) :  168. 

Hebrew,  ws  (Literature):  1. 
293  (Script). 

Hedone  (Koheleth,  Philebos) : 
282.283. 

Heliopolis:  249. 

Hell  (Gehinnom) :  53. 

Hellenism,  ists:  xxvii.227.231. 
250.253.262. 

Herds  (Civilization) :  209. 

Hereafter  (Eschatal.) :  50. 

Hereditary  Priest:  195. 

Heredity:  148.241. 

Heresy:  xxiv.xxix. 232. 244.256 
(Bened.).  218. 

Hermeneutics  (Interpret.):  277. 

Herod :  268. 

Hezekiah:  24.69. 

Hideen  Away  (Canon):  76.207. 

Hierodoule  (Ishtar):  33.35.71. 

High  Places  (Bamah):  68-75. 
270. 

High  Priest:  195. 

Hilkiyahu:  70.75. 

Hillel:  219.295. 

Hirsch,  Samuel:  xxv. 

Historic  Group  (Graeco-Jewish) : 
293. 

History,  ical:  xx-xxii.  1.6.21.26. 
56.79.82-83  (Argument,  Na- 
ture). 101.103.107.108.112.116. 
117.121.132  (Books).  141.162- 
165.173-176.181.186-192.200 
(Relig.).  201.202.204.206.210. 
212.215.230  (Justice).  232 
(Providence).  233-248 
(Psalms).  258-267.271.278.279. 
293.294.297. 

Hoda'ah  (Three  Last):  257. 

Hoffmann,  David:  xxiv. 


INDEX 


317 


Hohmah    (Koheleth,    Philebos): 

282. 
Holeluth  (Koh.):282. 
Holiness,    Holy:    5.6.9.33.35.37. 

101.118.131    (of  Holies).   140. 

155.186.187.188    (o.  H.).    193 

(Land).  203.204.212.240 

(Spirit).  258. 
Homoiosis  Theo    (Imitatio  dei): 

11.228. 
Hosea:  xvi.32.34-36.38.52. 89.90. 

93-94. 
Hoshen  (Urim) :  xl. 
Host  (of  Heaven):  136.264. 
House  of  David:  262. 
House  of  Hillel:  295. 
House  of  JHVH:  89.95.109.110 

114. 
House-Offering  (Passah):  73.270. 
Huldah:  70. 
Human  Form  (Anthropomorph , 

Image):  208. 
Human  Sacrifice:  64. 
Hypothesis   (Bibl.   Critic):  xix. 

xxiii.xxiv.xxvi. 

I. 

Ibn  Ezra,  Abraham  (Bibl.  Crit.) : 

xviii.xix. 
Idea    (Theory   of   Id.):    131.193 

225.251.263.296. 
Ideal  Constitution:  99.293. 
Ideal  (God  as):  211. 
Ideal  King:  228.236.243.282. 
Ideogram  (JHVH):  192.193. 
Idolatry:        86.101.161.162.248- 

250. 
Ignorance  (Agnoia) :  282. 
'Ikkarim:  v. 
Iliad:  264 

Illiteracy  (Jeremiah):  114. 
Image  (Art,  Idol.):  3.5.15-18.42. 

43.64-69.73-77.106.110.120. 

130. 161 .  198 .  212 .  250.267.272. 

Man:  187.200.229. 
Imitatio  dei   (Homoiosis):    228. 

235. 
Imitation  (Cult.):  24.25. 
Immanuel:  39. 


Immortality  (Eschatol.):  50.154. 

157 .  188 .  205 .  207 .  245.246.258. 

279.280.287.288. 
Impartiality       (Three       Theol. 

Post.):  283. 
Inalienability  (Land):  186.204. 
Incense  (Grace):  195. 
Incest  (Capit.  Punish.):  171.199. 
Incorporeality     (God):     2.3.5.9. 

187.207.208.296. 
Individual  (-State):  228.237. 
Individual      Retribution      (Re- 
sponsibility):   53.58     (Legal). 

104.119.126.128  (Nation).  129. 

132  .144  .145  .148  .150  .152 

(Esch.).    153.164.170.177.182. 

183.195.196.242.245    (Soul). 

278. 
Indulgence  (Sin  Off.):  88. 
Innocence  (Retrib.):  206. 
Inspiration     (Proph.,     Literal): 

xv.xxx.258. 
Institutions:        xxxiii.  253.277 . 

Soph.  I.:  275.276. 
Instrument     (Grace):     184.195. 

272.  Music:  272.274. 
Intermarriage:  64  (Angels).  91. 

169.172.173.191.269.288. 

Mixed  M.:  170.174.262. 
Intermediary     Stage     (Mercy): 

191. 
Intermediary  Benedictions  (The- 

phillah):  256-258. 
Intermediation         (Mediation): 

xxiii. 
International:  90.169. 
Interposition  (Mediation):  127. 
Interpretation  (Oral  Trad.):  74. 

180.213-215 .217 .225 . 238.240. 

270.275.277.297.299    (Ration- 
al). 
Introduction     (Hist.,    Sources): 

201.206. 
Isaac:  23. 
Isaiah:     xvi.xx.xxiv.36-40.41.45. 

46.49.51-53.94-95. 100.10?.  136- 

141. 148.155. 228.2o8. 
Ishtar   (Sexual):   25.33.35.64.69. 

70.101.175. 


318 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Isles  of  the  Nations  (Univ.):  95. 

Israel  (Nations):  292. 

Israel     (-Juda):     17.19.21.25.26. 

30-37.63.65-71.89.90.94-95.114 

136.137.174.190.262. 
Israelites:  xx.2.17.48.80.137.168. 

262.270  (-Cohen). 


Jacob  (Israel):  23.35.117.181. 

Jacob,  Dr. :  xxv. 

Jah  (JHJ:8. 

Jahvist  (J):  xx.6.21. 22. 26.29-32. 

33.76.191.211.234.  —  Younger 

Jahvist     (J2):     xxxv.48.51.82. 

117.161.202.207.226. 
Jampel,  Sigmund:  xxv. 
JE     (EJ):     xx-xxii.191.201.202. 

224.226.263. 
Jecirah  (Book  of) :  298. 
Jehoshophat:  136. 
Jehu;  92.93. 
Jensen,  P.  1. 
Jeremiah,   ian  School:  xvi.6.25. 

37.41.48.70.75.100-114.116- 

125 .128-138 .140-143 . 148 . 155- 

158.160.175.178-181.186.187. 

189 .  196. 198 .  200 .  204.207.210- 

215.228.231.237.238.257.272. 

295.300. 
Jeroboam:  92.93. 
Jerusalem  (Center):  25.34.37.65- 

70.73.95.113.180.182.210.240. 

249.254-257.261.270.272.276. 
Jerushalmi  (Talmud) :  70. 
Jesus:  295. 
Jew  Hater:  176. 
HJVH:   xxv.8.28-29.33.34.37.39. 

102.118.120.135.142.163.171. 

182.183.191-193.202.203.222. 

233.234   (J. -Psalms).   236.251. 

274.286. 
Job    (Justice):    132.138.139.142- 

181.178    (Problem).    200.206. 

222.240.261.279.281.290.293. 
Joel:  33.48.49.136.159. 
Johanan  ben  Zaccai  (Mercabah) : 

295. 
Jojakim:  101. 


Jonah    (Thirteen):    138.139.166 
168.181-186.251. 

Jordan:  xviii. 

Joseph:  28. 

Josephus,  Flavius  (Graeco-Jew- 
ish):  276.293. 

Joshua :  xvii.xx. 

Josiah:  xxi.25.40.70. 

Jubilees,  Book  of:  279.292. 

Juda    (-Israel):    17.24    (Judea). 
25.26.33-37.63.65-71.89.90 
108.114.136.137.174. 

Judah  (Thamar,  Dynasty):  173. 

Judges  (Book) :  xvi. 

Judges:  74.85.87. 

Judgment  (Final,  Day  of):  279. 

Judicial  Execution  (Khareth) : 
213.269.276. 

Jus  talionis:  85.134. 

Justice:  10.28.39.54.90  (Inter- 
national). 108.119.143  (Probl.) 
149-152.156.161-163.169.173. 
176.187-191.226-230.234.242. 
278.281.283.286.290.293. 

K. 
Kant,  Immanuel:  141. 
Karaites  (Philos.):  299. 
Kedushoth  (Thephilla):  257.258. 
Kenites  (Rechabim) :  xxv. 
Key-Note  (Shalom):  194.195. 
Khabod  (Cabhod):37. 
Khareth    (Cap.    Pun.):    xli.170. 

188.196.199.200.213.251.269. 
King  (Song  of  S.):  166. 
King  (of  gods):  3.6.7. 
Kingdom  (of  God) :  36. 
Kings  (Book):  xvi.89  (Period  of 

K.).  262. 
Knowledge  (Divine):  84.149. 
Koheleth:     xvi. 222. 262.278.281- 

291.293. 
Korah:  195. 

L. 

Lamentations:  81. 
Land-Distribution:  135. 
Language:  209. 

Law:  xviii-xxii.xxv.xxvi.xxxi.58- 
60   (Deut.).   61.83.85.109.113. 


INDEX 


319 


116.133.170.187.199.210-214. 

223.226.251.259.266-272.296. 
Lawgiver:  61. 

Lay-Offering  (Passah) :  270. 
Lebeusanschauung:  97. 
Legislation:     27.76.108-112.132- 

134.135.162.167.198. 
Levi:  67. 

Levirate  (Ruth):  171.172. 
Levites:   70.73.79.134.257.269- 

274  (Music). 
Levitical  Purity:  179.180. 
Liberal  Theology  (Arabic):  299. 
Liberty  (Relig.):  176. 
Life:  205  (System).  288  (Philos.). 
Life  (Eternal,  Immort.):  245. 
Life   (of  Adam  and  E.,  Book): 

205. 
Light  (Dualism) :  140. 
Light  (Bliss) :  245. 
Lightning  (Revel.):  47.187. 
List  (of  Readings):  255. 
Literature:    79-83.107.108.131- 

132.162-169.189.247-249.268. 
Liturgy    (Order    of    the    Day): 

127.233.239.248.249.252-260. 

273.291. 
Logic:  296.298. 
Logos    (Wisdom):    225.231.237. 

239.292.295. 
Long-Suffering    (Thirteen):    39. 

41.58.100.105.147.177.181-185. 

194.223.286. 
Lost  Writings:  81. 
Lot  (Oracle):  xlii.  183. 
Love  (to  God):  84. 
Love  (Divine):  156.157. 
Love  (Sexual):  166.170.172.174. 
Loyalty  (Political):  175. 
Luxury  (Necessaries):  77.250. 

M. 
Ma'amadoth  (Liturgy):  257. 
Maccabees:  221.261.266.279. 
Magguepha  (Khareth):  170.195. 

196. 
Magna  Charta:  xxx. 
Maimuni,  Moses:  132.300. 
Malachai:  138.148.155.168. 


Mala'kh  JHVH  (Angels):  44.119. 

210.195. 
Malchisedek  (Psalms):  xvii. 
Man:  xxvi,35,160  (The,  Angel). 

168.187.200.208.284-287.290. 
Mansion  (Art):  77. 
Mantical   (Prophecy):  46.47.71. 

79.103.121.122.183.187.274 

(Music). 
Marah:  xviii.  171  (Naomi). 
Marasmus  (Koheleth):  287. 
Marduk:  3.140.175. 
Martvrdom:  279. 
Massah  (Prophecy):  122. 
Massechah  (Golden  Calf):  6.15. 

18.28.64.67. 
Mathematics:  80. 
Matter,  Primary:  296. 
Matzeboth:  65.69. 
Means  (Grace):  184.194.196. 
Medes:  175. 
Mediation    (Angels):    xxiii.xxvi. 

14.20.30.33.34.38.44.65.68 .  87 . 

98.100.101.127.133.197.203. 
Men  of  Great  Synagog:  276. 
Menahem:  93. 
Menasseh:  25.69-73.95. 
Mercabah     (Angels):     37.45.65. 

116.119-123.130.131.155.160. 

163 .263 .264. 267 .  278.288.292. 

295-299. 
Mercy:    28.34.39.119.147.150. 

156.167.170.171.177.181.190- 

192 .  195 .202 .  203 .  234.245.247. 

257.274.286. 
Merit  (-Sin):  127.169. 
Messiah,     anic:     92-95.113.134. 

152 .  178 .  199 .  228 .  244.258.269. 
Metaphysics,     cal:     xix.9.36-42. 

199.229.238.300. 
Micah:  46.64.95.135.136. 
Michael  (Angel):  264. 
Middle  Ages:  xxvii.132. 136.298. 

300. 
Midrash:  81.  (Bibl.)  298. 
Might    (Attr.,    Omnip.):    36.39 

102.103.119.149.187. 
Migration  (Soul):  52. 
Mikkeren  Zowith:  xv. 


320 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Milkhom  (Milcom):  71. 
Miracles  (Proph.):  11.44.48. 
Miriam:  24. 

Mishmaroth  (Liturgy):  257. 
Mishnah:    70.210.255.259.290. 

296. 
Mission  (of  Isr.):  92.103.113.294. 
Mixed  Marriages  (Interm.):  170. 

174. 
Moab:  5.108.169-172. 
Model  (Idea):  193.200. 
Modern  Times:  301. 
Moloch:  64.71.110. 
Monarchy:  221. 
Monotheism,  istic:  xxiii.2.42.55. 

70.75.79.87.97.102-115.123. 

124.140-143.149.155.161-163. 

171.182.186.197.199.204.224. 

238.239.246.249.253.273. 
Mordechai:  175. 
Morning  Offering:  257. 
Mosaic  (Aphorism) :  248. 
Moses:  xv-xxii.24.28-30.35.47. 64- 

74.176.188.191.192.200-203. 

208.217.225.240.274-277.292. 
Motif  (Art.,  Liter.):  1.4.7.26.32- 

34.79.102.118.131   (Cherub) 

138.162-166.169-175.182.189 

191.203.233-237.294.297.238 

300. 
Mountain  of  the  Lord  (Sacrif.) 

251. 
Murder  (Cap.  Pun.):  86.197. 
Music  (Art):  76-79.131.160.209. 

251.268.269-274  (Temple). 
Mu'tazila  (Philos.):  299. 
Mystery  (Div.  Plan):  285. 
Mysticism  (Cabbalah):  296-299. 
Mythology:  224.265.266. 

N. 

Nahum:  122.182. 

Name    (Divine):    7.12-14.26-42. 

102.110.118.120.135.143.173. 

193.233.264  (Angels). 
Naomi:  170-173. 
National    Retribution:    55.105- 

106.124-129.147-150.167-170. 

178.194-196.211.215  (N.  Sin). 


216.242.243.278.279. 
Nationality  (-Religion):  134.174- 

176.199.249.250  (Psalms). 
Nations      (-Israel):      xxiii.xxvii. 

xxviii.xxxii. 91. 92. 113. 134-136. 

167 . 168 .173 .176-184 . 234.249. 

250.264. 
Nature:   103.107.108   (N.  Law). 

116.141.185. 
Nebuchadnezzar:  108.112. 
Necessaries:  243. 
Necromancy  (Mantical):  46.52. 

187.188.259.280. 
Nehemiah:  xvi. 222. 138.261-277. 
Nehushthan  (Seraph) :  69. 
Neo-Platonism:  299.300. 
New  Moon:  179.180. 
Nimrod :  209. 
Niniveh  (Jonah):  182f. 
Noah:    117.190.192.202.203.209. 
Nomadic:  17. 
North  (-South:  Israel-Juda):  17. 

37.69. 
Nothing:  40.141. 

O. 

Obadjah:  168. 
Obligatory  (-Free) :  254. 
Official  Judaism  (Author.):  xiv. 
Oil  of  Anointment  (Relics):  70. 

75. 
Old  Testament:  xxvi. 
Omen  (Oracle):  72. 
Omnipotence  (Might):  151.154* 

232. 
Omnipresence:  154. 
Omniscience    (Knowledge) :    84. 

146.149.151.232.283.286.297. 
Oracle  (Urim):  70.267. 
Oral  Tradition  (O.  Law):  75.213- 

215 .217 .220.225 .258-260.266. 

274-277.291.299. 
Organ  (Creation):  238. 
Organized  Religion:  xxiii.xxviii. 

xxxii. 
Order  of  the  Day  (Liturgy) :  254. 

256-260.264. 
Oriental  Sources:  xxiii.xxv. 
Origins:  208.238. 


INDEX 


321 


Ornamental    (Art,    Decorative) : 

130. 
Orthodox:        xvi.xvii.xxiv-xxxii. 

115.299. 
Osiris:  66. 
Other  gods:  40.64.102.110.141. 


Paganism    (Heathen):   43.61.62. 

75.220.221.246 
Painting  (Art):  78.106.130. 
Palace  Revolution:  276. 
Palestine  (Canaan):  xviii.xx.xxv. 

77.78.111.130.149.170.175.176. 

182.193.198.204.221.249.253. 

257.270.296.297. 
Paradise   (Gan-Eden):    190.202- 

208. 
Paranomasy:  34. 
Parents:  xxiii- (Family  Retrib.). 
Parsism  (Persia):  140. 
Particularism  (Univers.):  91. 
Party  (Two  Schools) :  198. 
Passah:  73.270. 
Passion  (Three  P.) 
Patriarch:     xx.23. 27.30.171.172 

191.240.256.269. 
Paul  (Apostle):  113. 
Peace  (Shalom):  193-195. 
Pedigree:  5  (Div.).  81. 
Penal  Law:  296. 
Pentateuch:  xiv.71.201. 
Perfectibility:  104. 
Perfectly  Just  (Justice):  190.191. 
Persia,    an  (Parsism):    140.141. 

175 .  220-223 .253 .  255 .  263.264. 

291.297  (Neo-P.). 
Personal  Messiah:  258. 
Personality:  11.56.284  (Div.). 
Personification:  263, 
Pharao:  xxxix.5.49. 188.241. 
Pharisees  (Sadducees):  277.280. 
Philebos  (Plato):  28 If. 
Philo:  235.270.271.294. 
Philosophic  Groups:  293. 
Philosophy,  phic  (Metaphysics) : 

xxvii.l0f8.136  (Medieval).  164. 

199.200.236.258.280-282.288. 

289.293-300  (Medieval). 


Phronesis  (Hochmah) :  282f. 
Physics  (Aristotle) :  299. 
Pinehas:  195. 

Plague  (Magguepha):  195. 
Plan   (Div.):    195    (Israel).   285. 

286.290. 
Plastics  (Art):     76.106.107.129. 

130.161.208.268. 
Plato,  onic,  onism:  6.80.129.200. 

221.226-239.243.244.263.280- 

285.293.294.298.300. 
Pleasure  (Holeluth):  282. 
Plurality:  296. 
Poetry:  81.268.269.274. 
Political:      103.152.153.228.236. 

242.264.217.276.279.282. 
Polytheism:  70. 
Popular:    xv.xxix.xxxiii.223.225. 

236.239.247.248.288. 
Post-Biblical:    xiv. 259. 260. 291- 

301. 
Post-Ezra:  219-301.229. 
Post-Jeremian:  108. 
Postulates:  60.232  (Theol.).  264. 
Prayer  (Liturgy):  127.260. 
Pre-Deuteronomic:    26.78.82.97. 

122.203.205.206.265. 
Prediction  (Proph.):  xvi.48.103. 

274. 
Pre- Egyptian     (History):     116. 

117.190. 
Preexistence  (Premundane):  292. 
Preformatiye:  56.291-301. 
Pre-Hellenistic:  266. 
Pre-Historic:  261. 
Pre-Jeremian:  100.201. 
Pre-Maccabean:     240.241.261. 

266. 
Premundane  (Preexistence):  xvi. 
Prerogative  (Priest):  120. 
Presence  (Div.):  120. 
Pre-Sinaitic:  1-16.26. 
Press:  xxix.xxxi. 
Priest:    73.74.109.111.133.195. 

257.269.274. 
Priestly    Blessing:    29.193f.195. 

233  257  258 
Priestly  Code'(P  C):  xiv.24.109. 

168. 170. 186-200. 201-204.210- 


322 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


212.215-217.221-226.234.237. 

251.255.256.263.266.268.272. 
Priestly  Torah:  87. 
Primary  Matter:  296. 
Principles     (Dogmas):    xxx.253. 

254.257.258.260.265. 
Problem    (God,    Justice,    etc.): 

164.300. 
Problem  Drama:  166. 
Proof  (Argument,  Cosmol.):  230. 

232. 
Propaganda  (Mission):  269.294. 
Prophecy,  Prophet,  -ic:  xiv.xviii. 

xxiii .  xxvi .  xxix-xxxi  .11.22.27. 

33.42-48.57.60-62.68.74  (Sch.). 

77.78  (Sch.).  81.83.87-90.103- 

104.109.111.121-123.133.150. 

152.157-160.165.179.182.205. 

188.208.228.239-241.256.258. 

260.264-265.274.281.285. 
Prophetic  Torah:  87. 
Prose  (Liter.):  81.162. 
Proselyte:  168-174. 
Protestant :  xix. 
Proverbs:  xvi. 222. 228. 229-252 . 

275.282.288.293. 
Providence  (Justice):  5.107.108. 

116.158.173.213.232.233.257. 

283.284.286. 
Province  (Palestine,  Jerus.):  249. 

254.255. 
Psalms:    xvi. xvii. 32. 160.222. 229- 

252.253.254.269.272.273.279- 

282.287.288.293. 
Psalmodic  Literature:  249. 
Psychology:  xxxiv. 
Publications:  xxix. 
Pulpit:  xxix. 
Purim:288. 
Purity:     5     (Family).     179-180 

(Levitical). 
Pythagoreans:  80. 


Queen  of  Heaven  (Ishtar):  25. 


Rabbanites  (Karaites) :  299. 
Rabh(Talmud) :  297. 298 (School). 
Rabbinic:  xiv.xxvii. 


Rabbi:  xix.-xxii. 

Race,  cial:  220. 

Rainbow  (Mercy):  119.190.192. 

193.202. 
Rational  (Interpret.):  299. 
Reaction:  121.262-267. 
Readings  (List  of  R.):  255.259. 
Rebecca:  5. 

Recession  (Sun,  Calendar) :  66. 
Rechabim  (Jeremia,  Wine):  109. 

112. 
Redaction    (Final    R.):    21.171 

(Monoth.).  222.252.255.261. 

298  (Talm.). 
Redemption  (Geulah,  Messiah) : 

152.258. 
Reform:     xxx-xxxiii     (Modern). 

20    (Deut.).    24    Hezek.).    25 

(D.).    71    (D.).   66    (Calend.). 

93.115. 
Registry  (Public):  114. 
Relation  (God):  283. 
Relics  (Reform):  70.74.107.212. 
Relief  (Image,  Painting):  130. 
Religion  (-Nationality):  174-177. 
Religious  Liberty:  176. 
Remnant:  36.99.111.127. 
Remorse  (Conscience):  146.194. 
Repentance:     123-126.142.147. 

184.185.194. 
Repetition    of    Torah    (Deut.) : 

217.224. 
Responsibility  (Retribution). 
Restoration:  240.261.265. 
Resurrection  (Eschat.):  123.129. 

258f.278-280.287. 
Retribution:     42.43.49-60.82-90. 

104-106.124-129.144.147-150. 

157. 164. 167-170. 176-178. 182- 

185.188.194-196.205.209.211. 

215.216.241-243.251.256.265. 

278.283.286. 
Revelation  (Prophecy):  27. 
Revision  (of  Hist.):  22-23. 
Ritual:  xxx.xxxi.61.62.78.99.109. 

133.168.178.180.198.199.213. 

259.268.270.285.296. 
Romans:  240.256.291. 
Rome:  297. 


INDEX 


323 


Ruah  (Soul,  Spirit):  40.121-124. 

129.152.153.240  (hak-Kodesh). 

244.245.279.287. 
Rules  of  Interpretation:  215.226. 

277. 
Rules  of  Life:  230.282.284. 
Ruth:  xvi.138.142. 166.169-173. 

S. 
Saadya  Group:  299.300. 
Sabbath:  109.133.179.180.186. 

199.204.255. 
Sacrifice:  xxiii. xxviii.xl. 64. 73.87- 

90. 109-112. 133. 169. 178-184. 

194.195.198.203.208.215.232. 

248-252.255.257.268-272.383- 

385 
Sadducees  (Pharisees):  277.280. 
Samaria:  34.220.223. 
Samuel:  176.240. 
Sanctuary  (Tabernacle,  Temple) : 

116.196.199.247.251.263.270. 

292. 
Sanherib;  95. 
Sarah:  5. 

Satan:  155.161.165. 
Saul:  176. 
Scape  Goat:  xl. 
Schechter,  Solomon:  xviii. 
Schools :       xxix .  xxxii .  xxxiii .  247 

(Psalms,  Gnomic). 
Schwedt,  Germany:  xxv. 
Science:  299. 
Script:  223. 
Scripture:  297. 
Scroll  (Coven.):  67.160. 
Sculpture  (Art):  76.130. 
Second  Sin:  202. 
Sectarians:  297. 
Secular:    77     (Art).    80     (Lit.). 

165. 
Selection  (Chosen  P.):  13.82.90. 

91.103.108.116.135.136.142. 

173.177.178.181.184.186.195. 

255  (Torah).  256. 
Self-Defense:  87. 
Semitic:  11.17.25.31.43.50.62.80. 

89.90.114.167.220.221. 
Separatism  (Univ.):  175. 
Sepher  hay-Yashar:  81. 


Seraph:  65.68.69. 

Serapis:  66. 

Sermon:  xxxi. 

Serpent:  203. 

Servant   of   the   Lord:    112.117. 

127.178. 
Seven  Nations:  58. 
Sexual  (Motif):  2.15.21.22.25.33. 

35.79.80.86.117.130.166.170- 

175. 191 .  203 .  206 .  207.243.282. 

288 
Shadday;    119.143.163.171.191. 
Shallum:  93. 
Shalom    (Priestly    Bl.):    39.193- 

195. 
Shammai:  219.  .. 
Shaphan:  75. 

Sheol:  50-53. 129.153.244f.287. 
Sheth:  203. 

Sh'ma'  Yisroel:  42.256.258. 
Sichem:  29. 

Sichluth  (Agnoia) :  282. 
Sign  (Mercy):  28.103   (Proph.). 

120.192.202. 
Sign  of  the  Covenant:  133.190. 

191. 
Sin  (-Merit):  127.169  (Confess.). 

202. 
Sin-Offering   (Guilt-O.):  89.112. 

134.168.177.196.209.216.223. 

251. 
Sinai:  xviii.5-8.17.24.28.44.47.63. 

66.72.94.187.192.200.203.214. 
Sirach:  292. 

Skepticism:  150.244.247. 
Slavery:  109. 

Slaughtering  (Lay-Off.):  270. 
Sleep  (Resurr.) :  280. 
Social  Message:  xxiii.  10.54. 109. 

111.133. 
Sodom:  31.117. 
Solomon:  xvi.46.68. 76.77.91. 158. 

193.267.292. 
Solutions  (Pr.  of  Justice):  231f. 

240.241.278-280.290. 
Song     (Psalms):    45.78.233.248. 

252.269-274    (Temple). 
Song   of   Songs:   xvi. 80.136. 222. 

288. 


324 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Sons  of  Eli  (Free  Will):  241. 

Sons  of  Elohim:  3-5. 

Sopherim,  Sopheric:  220-223.251. 

259  (Bened.).  275-277. 
Sophia      (Card.     Attrib.):     228 

(Polit.).     23S     (Cosmol.)-242. 

288 
Sophrosvne  (C.  Attr.):  40.242. 
Soul   (Eschat.):  42.43.47.49.104- 

106.123-124.151-154.157.164. 

187.188.205-208.244-249. 
Sources   (Torah) :  xxii.xxxiii-xlii. 
South  (-North,  Isr.-Juda):  17.37. 
Speculation    (Philos.):     156.199. 

298.301. 
Spies:  195. 
Spinoza,  Baruch:  v.xix.xxvii.xxx. 

xlii. 
Spirit  (-Flesh):  40.51.78  (Evil). 

121.187. 
Spirit    (Jewish):   xxv.xxvii.xxxii. 

xxxiii. 
Square  Script:  223. 
Stadia  (Hellen.):  250. 
Staff:  203. 
State:  98.210. 
State  (-Ind.):  228.237. 
State,  The  (Plato):  238.281. 
Still-Life  (Art):  170. 
Stoics:  283  (Sage).  284. 
Stone  (Co v.):  67. 
Storm  (Revel.):  152.183. 
Strange  gods  (Other  g.):  110. 
Stranger:  57.58.135. 
String  (Proverbs):  231.247.248. 
Succoth  (Proselvtes):  179.180. 
Suffering  (Probl.):  125.145.168. 
Sumerians:  xxv. 

Sword  (Angel,  Cherub):  202-208. 
Synagogue  (Liturgy):  xxxi. 
Svnhedrin:  276. 
Syria,  ans:  76.261.262.299  (Sch. 

of  Philos.). 


Tabernacle:    xl. 187-193. 198. 200. 

203.208.229.268. 
Tablets:  xii. 60.64.67-69.75. 113. 
Taboo:  12. 


Taken  Care  of  (Hidden  Awav) : 

289. 
Talmud,  ic:  v.xiv-xviii.xxii.l  24 

70.79.123.132.136.210.220  ?21 

228. 240. 241. 244. 255. 256.260 

264.268.270.271.275-277.288. 

290.292.295-299. 
Tannaim,  aitic:  258.288.292. 
Tatooing:  161. 
Taurus  (Recession) :  66. 
Teacher:  xxx-xxxiii. 
Temperance  (Card.  V.):  227.243. 

282. 
Temple:    xviii. xxxiii,    (Modern). 

79.110.116.131.186.193.212. 

240.249.250.254-257.264.267- 

274.270  (Temple  Off.). 
Temporary  Name  (Div.):  34.39. 

102. 
Ten  Commandments  (Decalog) : 

64.67. 
Ten  Psalmists:  xvii. 
Tent  (Tabern.)  192.209. 
Thephilla  (Eighteen  Ben.):  256- 

258. 
Testament  of  Job:  132. 
Testament  of  Mo's/es  (Deut.):  75 
Testament  of  Twelve  Patriarchs: 

235. 
Text  Book  (Jecirah) :  298. 
Thamar  (Judah):  173. 
Thank-Off  ering:      111.168.184. 

250.251. 
Tharshish  (Jonah):  183. 
Theocracy:  36.39.228.235-238.^ 
Theological  Seminary:  xxvi.xxix. 
Theology:     53.129.166.186.299 

(Sch.). 
Theophany:  21. 
Theory  (-Practice) :  226. 
Theory  of  Ideas  (Babyl.,  Plato): 

200.229.237.238.251.263.288. 

292.295-299. 
Theos,  Ho  (Koheleth):  286. 
Thiamath  (Cosmog.)^:  155.237. 
Third  Person:  xvi.21'7.225. 
Thirteen    (Attrib.):   xxxix.  13.26. 

28-29 .  33 .  34 .  38-41 .  55 .  58.100. 

102. 105. 118. 119.125. 128. 143f. 


INDEX 


321 


Ornamental    (Art,    Decorative): 

130. 
Orthodox:        xvi.xvii.xxiv-xxxii. 

115.299. 
Osiris:  66. 
Other  gods:  40.64.102.110.141. 


Paganism    (Heathen):   43.61.62. 

75.220.221.246 
Painting  (Art):  78.106.130. 
Palace  Revolution:  276. 
Palestine  (Canaan):  xviii.xx.xxv. 

77.78.111.130.149.170.175.176. 

182.193.198.204.221.249.253. 

257.270.296.297. 
Paradise   (Gan-Eden):    190.202- 

208. 
Paranomasy:  34. 
Parents:  xxiii- (Family  Retrib.). 
Parsism  (Persia):  140. 
Particularism  (Univers.):  91. 
Party  (Two  Schools) :  198. 
Passah:  73.270. 
Passion  (Three  P.) 
Patriarch:     xx.23.27.30.171.172 

191.240.256.269. 
Paul  (Apostle):  113. 
Peace  (Shalom) :  193-195. 
Pedigree:  5  (Div.).  81. 
Penal  Law:  296. 
Pentateuch:  xiv.7 1.201. 
Perfectibility:  104. 
Perfectly  Just  (Justice):  190.191. 
Persia,    an  (Parsism):    140.141. 

175.220-223.253.255.263.264. 

291.297  (Neo-P.). 
Personal  Messiah:  258. 
Personality:  11.56.284  (Div.). 
Personification:  263. 
Pharao:  xxxix.5.49. 188.241. 
Pharisees  (Sadducees):  277.280. 
Philebos  (Plato):  281f. 
Philo:  235.270.271.294. 
Philosophic  Groups:  293. 
Philosophy,  phic  (Metaphysics) : 
xxvii.108.136  (Medieval).  164. 
199.200.236.258.280-282.288. 
289.293-300  (Medieval). 


Phronesis  (Hochmah):  282f. 
Physics  (Aristotle) :  299. 
Pinehas:  195. 

Plague  (Magguepha):  195. 
Plan   (Div.):    195    (Israel).   285. 

286.290. 
Plastics  (Art):     76.106.107.129. 

130.161.208.268. 
Plato,  onic,  onism:  6.80.129.200. 

221.226-239.243.244.263.280- 

285.293.294.298.300. 
Pleasure  (Holeluth) :  282. 
Plurality:  296. 
Poetry:  81.268.269.274. 
Political :      103.152.153.228.236. 

242.264.217.276.279.282. 
Polytheism:  70. 
Popular:    xv.xxix.xxxiii.223.225. 

236.239.247.248.288. 
Post-Biblical:    xiv. 259. 260. 291- 

301. 
Post-Ezra:  219-301.229. 
Post-Jeremian:  108. 
Postulates:  60.232  (Theol.).  264. 
Prayer  (Liturgy):  127.260. 
Pre-Deuteronomic:    26.78.82.97. 

122.203.205.206.265. 
Prediction  (Proph.):  xvi.48.103. 

274. 
Pre-Egyptian     (History):     116. 

117.190. 
Preexistence  (Premundane) :  292. 
Preformative:  56.291-301. 
Pre-Hellenistic:  266. 
Pre-Historic:  261. 
Pre-Jeremian:  100.201. 
Pre-Maccabean:     240.241.261. 

266. 
Premundane  (Preexistence):  xvi. 
Prerogative  (Priest):  120. 
Presence  (Div.):  120. 
Pre-Sinaitic:  1-16.26. 
Press:  xxix.xxxi. 
Priest:    73.74.109.111.133.195. 

257.269.274. 
Priestly     Blessing:    29.193f.195. 

233.257.258. 
Priestly  Code  (P  C):  xiv.24.109. 

168.170.186-200.201-204.210- 


322 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


212.215-217.221-226.234.237. 

251.255.256.263.266.268.272. 
Priestly  Torah:  87. 
Primary  Matter:  296. 
Principles     (Dogmas):    xxx.253. 

254.257.258.260.265. 
Problem    (God,    Justice,    etc.): 

164.300. 
Problem  Drama:  166. 
Proof  (Argument,  Cosmol.):  230. 

232. 
Propaganda  (Mission):  269.294. 
Prophecy,  Prophet,  -ic:  xiv.xviii. 

xxiii.xxvi.xxix-xxxi.  11.22.27. 

33.42-48.57.60-62.68.74  (Sch.). 

77.78  (Sch.).  81.83.87-90.103- 

104.109.111.121-123.133.150. 

152.157-160.165.179.182.205. 

188.208.228.239-241.256.258. 

260.264-265.274.281.285. 
Prophetic  Torah:  87. 
Prose  (Liter.):  81.162. 
Proselyte:  168-174. 
Protestant :  xix. 
Proverbs:  xvi. 222. 228. 229-252 . 

275.282.288.293. 
Providence  (Justice):  5.107.108. 

116.158.173.213.232.233.257. 

283.284.286. 
Province  (Palestine,  Jerus.) :  249. 

254.255. 
Psalms:    xvi. xvii. 32. 160.222. 229- 

252.253.254.269.272.273.279- 

282.287.288.293. 
Psalmodic  Literature:  249. 
Psychology:  xxxiv. 
Publications:  xxix. 
Pulpit:  xxix. 
Purim:  288. 
Purity:     5     (Family).     179-180 

(Levitical). 
Pythagoreans:  80. 

Q- 
Queen  of  Heaven  (Ishtar):  25. 


Rabbanites  (Karaites) :  299. 
Rabh(Talmud):297.298(School). 
Rabbinic:  xiv.xxvii. 


Rabbi:  xix.-xxii. 

Race,  cial:  220. 

Rainbow  (Mercy):  119.190.192. 

193.202. 
Rational  (Interpret.):  299. 
Reaction:  121.262-267. 
Readings  (List  of  R.):  255.259. 
Rebecca:  5. 

Recession  (Sun,  Calendar):  66. 
Rechabim  (Jeremia,  Wine):  109. 

112. 
Redaction     (Final     R.):    21.171 

(Monoth.).  222.252.255.261. 

298  (Talm.). 
Redemption  (Geulah,  Messiah): 

152.258. 
Reform:     xxx-xxxiii     (Modern). 

20    (Deut.).    24    Hezek.).    25 

(D.).    71    (D.).   66    (Calend.). 

93.115. 
Registry  (Public):  114. 
Relation  (God):  283. 
Relics  (Reform):  70.74.107.212. 
Relief  (Image,  Painting):  130. 
Religion  (-Nationality):  174-177. 
Religious  Liberty:  176. 
Remnant:  36.99.111.127. 
Remorse  (Conscience):  146.194. 
Repentance:      123-126.142.147. 

184.185.194. 
Repetition    of    Torah     (Deut.): 

217.224. 
Responsibility  (Retribution). 
Restoration:  240.261.265. 
Resurrection  (Eschat.):  123.129. 

258f.278-280.287. 
Retribution:     42.43.49-60.82-90. 

104-106. 124-129. 144. 147-150. 

157 . 164. 167-170. 176-178 . 182- 

185.188.194-196.205.209.211. 

215.216.241-243.251.256.265. 

278.283.286. 
Revelation  (Prophecy):  27. 
Revision  (of  Hist.):  22-23. 
Ritual:  xxx.xxxi.61.62.78.99.109. 

133.168.178.180.198.199.213. 

259.268.270.285.296. 
Romans:  240.256.291. 
Rome:  297. 


INDEX 


323 


Ruah  (Soul,  Spirit):  40.121-124. 

129.152.153.240  (hak-Kodesh). 

244.245.279.287. 
Rules  of  Interpretation:  215.226. 

277. 
Rules  of  Life:  230.282.284. 
Ruth:  xvi.138.142. 166.169-173. 

S. 
Saadya  Group:  299.300. 
Sabbath:   109.133.179.180.186. 

199.204.255. 
Sacrifice :  xxiii. xxviii.xl. 64. 73.87- 

90.109-112.133.169.178-184. 

194.195.198.203.208.215.232. 

248-252.255.257.268-272.383- 

385 
Sadducees  (Pharisees):  277.280. 
Samaria:  34.220.223. 
Samuel:  176.240. 
Sanctuary  (Tabernacle,  Temple) : 

116.196.199.247.251.263.270. 

292. 
Sanherib;  95. 
Sarah:  5. 

Satan:  155.161.165. 
Saul:  176. 
Scape  Goat:  xl. 
Schechter,  Solomon:  xviii. 
Schools:       xxix.xxxii  .xxxiii.247 

(Psalms,  Gnomic). 
Schwedt,  Germany:  xxv. 
Science:  299. 
Script:  223. 
Scripture:  297. 
Scroll  (Coven.):  67.160. 
Sculpture  (Art):  76.130. 
Second  Sin:  202. 
Sectarians:  297. 
Secular:    77     (Art).    80     (Lit.). 

165. 
Selection  (Chosen  P.):  13.82.90. 

91.103.108.116.135.136.142. 

173.177.178.181.184.186.195. 

255  (Torah).  256. 
Self-Defense:  87. 
Semitic:  11.17.25.31.43.50.62.80. 

89.90.114.167.220.221. 
Separatism  (Univ.):  175. 
Sepher  hay-Yashar:  81. 


Seraph:  65.68.69. 

Serapis:  66. 

Sermon:  xxxi. 

Serpent:  203. 

Servant   of   the    Lord:    112.117. 

127.178. 
Seven  Nations:  58. 
Sexual  (Motif):  2.15.21.22.25.33. 

35.79.80.86.117.130.166.170- 

175.191.203.206.207.243.282. 

288 
Shadday;    119.143.163.171.191. 
Shallum:  93. 
Shalom    (Priestly    Bl.):    39.193- 

195. 
Shammai:  219.  .. 
Shaphan:  75. 

Sheol:  50-53. 129.153. 244f.287. 
Sheth:  203. 

Sh'ma'  Yisroel:  42.256.258. 
Sichem:  29. 

Sichluth  (Agnoia):  282. 
Sign  (Mercy):  28.103   (Proph.). 

120.192.202. 
Sign  of  the  Covenant:  133.190. 

191. 
Sin  (-Merit):  127.169  (Confess.). 

202. 
Sin-Offering    (Guilt-O.):  89.112. 

134.168.177.196.209.216.223. 

251. 
Sinai:  xviii. 5-8.17.24.28.44.47.63. 

66.72.94.187.192.200.203.214. 
Sirach:  292. 

Skepticism:  150.244.247. 
Slavery:  109. 

Slaughtering  (Lay-Off.):  270. 
Sleep  (Resurr.):280. 
Social  Message:  xxiii.  10. 54. 109. 

111.133. 
Sodom:  31.117. 
Solomon:  xvi.46.68.76.77.91.158. 

193.267.292. 
Solutions  (Pr.  of  Justice):  231f. 

240.241.278-280.290. 
Song     (Psalms):    45.78.233.248. 

252.269-274    (Temple). 
Song   of   Songs:   xvi. 80.136.222. 

288. 


324 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Sons  of  Eli  (FreeWill):  241. 

Sons  of  Elohim:  3-5. 

Sopherim,  Sopheric:  220-223.251. 

259  (Bened.).  275-277. 
Sophia     (Card.     Attrib.):     228 

(Polit.).     238     (Cosmol.)-242. 

288. 
Sophrosyne  (C.  Attn):  40.242. 
Soul  (Eschat.):  42.43.47.49.104- 

106.123-124.151-154.157.164. 

187.188.205-208.244-249. 
Sources  (Torah):  xxii.xxxiii-xlii. 
South  (-North,  Isr.-Juda):  17.37. 
Speculation    (Philos.):     156.199. 

298.301. 
Spies:  195. 
Spinoza,  Baruch:  v.xix.xxvii.xxx. 

xlii. 
Spirit   (-Flesh):  40.51.78  (Evil). 

121.187. 
Spirit    (Jewish):  xxv.xxvii.xxxii. 

xxxiii. 
Square  Script:  223. 
Stadia  (Hellen.):  250. 
Staff:  203. 
State:  98.210. 
State  (-Ind.):  228.237. 
State,  The  (Plato):  238.281. 
Still-Life  (Art):  170. 
Stoics:  283  (Sage).  284. 
Stone  (Cow):  67. 
Storm  (Revel.):  152.183. 
Strange  gods  (Other  g.):  110. 
Stranger:  57.58.135. 
String  (Proverbs):  231.247.24S. 
Succoth  (Proselytes):  179.180. 
Suffering  (Probf.):  125.145.168. 
Sumerians:  xxv. 

Sword  (Angel,  Cherub):  202-208. 
Synagogue  (Liturgy):  xxxi. 
Svnhedrin:  276. 
Syria,  ans:  76.261.262.299  (Sell. 

of  Philos.). 


Tabernacle:    xl.  187-193. 198.200. 

203.208.229.268. 
Tablets:  xii.60.64.67-69.75.113. 
Taboo:  12. 


Taken  Care  of  (Hidden  Awav) : 

289. 
Talmud,  ic:  v.xiv-xviii.xxii.1.24. 

70.79.123.132.136.210.220.221. 

228.240.241.244.255.256.260. 

264.268.270.271.275-277.288. 

290.292.295-299. 
Tannaim,  aitic:  258.288.292. 
Tatooing:  161. 
Taurus  (Recession):  66. 
Teacher:  xxx-xxxiii. 
Temperance  (Card.  V.):  227.243. 

282. 
Temple:    xviii. xxxiii    (Modern). 

79.110.116.131.186.193.212. 

240.249.250.254-257.264.267- 

274.270  (Temple  Off.). 
Temporary  Name  (Div.):  34.39. 

102. 
Ten  Commandments  (Decalog) : 

64.67. 
Ten  Psalmists:  xvii. 
Tent  (Tabern.)  192.209. 
Thephilla  (Eighteen  Ben.):  256- 

258. 
Testament  of  Job:  132. 
Testament  of  Mos.es  (Deut.):  75 
Testament  of  Twelve  Patriarchs: 

235. 
Text  Book  (Jecirah) :  298. 
Thamar  (Judah):  173. 
Thank-Offering:      111.168.184. 

250.251. 
Tharshish  (Jonah):  183. 
Theocracy:  36.39.228.235-238. 
Theological  Seminary:  xxvi.xxix. 
Theology:     53.129.166.186.299 

(Sch.). 
Theophany:  21. 
Theory  (-Practice):  226. 
Theory  of  Ideas  (Babyl.,  Plato): 

200.229.237.238.251.263.288. 

292. 295-299. 
Theos,  Ho  (Koheleth):  286. 
Thiamath  (Cosmog.):  155.237. 
Thin]  Person:  xvi.217.225. 
Thirteen    (Attrib.):   xxxix.  13.26. 

28-29.33.34.38-41.55.58.100. 

102. 105. 118. 119.125. 128. 143f. 


INDEX 


325 


147.150.161.181.182.185.193 
194.202.228.233-237.256-258. 
293. 
Thirteen      Benedictions      (The- 

philla):  256.  v  " 

This  World  (-Hereafter).  287. 
Thochaha  (Admonition):  19. 
Tholdoth  ha'   Ikkarim:  v.xxxix. 
xlii.48-50.70.94. 104. 116.129. 
141.155.183.186-188.210.217. 
226.256.259.267-280. 
Thosephtha  (Talm.):  70. 
Thought  (-Action):  241. 
Three  First  (Bened.):  256.257. 
Three  Friends  (Job):  261. 
Three  Last  (Ben.):  256.257. 
Three  Lines  (of  Thought):  2l9ff. 
Three  Passions:  282. 
Three  Shepherds:  94. 
Three  Theol.  Postulates  (Plato): 

232.283.284. 
Throne:  116. 
Thunder  (Sinai) :  47.187. 
"Torah":  xiv.xx.xvii. 87. 216.217. 

222-225. 
Torah     (Pentateuch):    xiii-xviii. 
xxii-xxxii  .26.71. 79.87.222-229 
(Fin.  Red.).  238.251L257-263. 
273-277.292-295. 
Torah    from    Heaven    (Inspir.): 

217.258.259. 
Tower  (Bab.):  190.209. 
Tradition    (Oral    T.):    xxix.xxx. 
xxxiv.70.75.213     (Oral).     277 
(Two  T.).  285.299. 
Tree  of  Knowledge:  202.206.207. 
Tree  of  Life  (Immort.):  206.207. 
Trial  (Solutions):  177.243. 
Tribal  (Retrib.):  147. 
Trumpet  (Music):  79. 
Truth  (Hist.):  1. 
Twelve  (Astral.):  23. 
Twenty-four  (Ma'amadoth) :  259. 
Twin  Psalms:  235. 
Twins  (Gemini):  65.66. 
Two    Formulations         (Justice, 

Plato):  281. 
Two  Groups  (Graeco-J.,   Medi- 
eval Philos.):  293.299L 


Two  Schools  (Jer.-Ezek.):  137- 
217.181.186.189.204.209-212 
215.260. 

Two  Thoroth:  87.111.133. 

Two  Traditions:  277. 

Tyre:  108. 

U. 

'Ugab  (Music,  Sexual):  160. 
LInchastity  (Sexual):  64. 
Unit  (Liter.):  100. 
Unity  (Monoth.):42  (Dynamic). 

142.187.256.295.297. 
Universaliism:     57.76.90.91  94 
•   112-114.134-137.162.166-169. 

172-185.199.250.252.269. 
Upward  (Immort.):  246.287. 
Urim  ve  Thumim  (Oracle):  70. 

75.267.274. 


Vanity  (Koh.):282.  ' 

Vayyomer  (Sh'ma'):  256. 

Vehayah:256. 

Vicarious  Atonement  (Servant) 

127.177.178. 
Vice- Roy  (Mordechai):  175. 
Vine  (Noah) :  209. 
Virtues  (Card.  V.):  40.227.228. 
Vision  (Proph.):  159.279  (Dan.). 
Visiting  (Thirteen  A.):  105.126. 

194.211. 
Voice  (Proph.):  46.47.188. 

W. 

Wall  Painting  (Art):  130. 
Walls  of  Jerusalem:  73. 
War:  58.222  (Mace). 
Watchman  (Proph.):  123. 
Way  of  Life  (Immort.):  246. 
Ways  of  God:  28. 118.1  IV.  125. 

128.143.149.150.163.226.228. 

247.290. 
Weaving  (Art):  76. 
Wellhausen:  xix. 
Weltanschauung:  97.121.122. 
Western  School  (Philos.):  299. 
Western  Semitic:    25.36  (Asia). 
Wind  (Ruah):  L52. 


326 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Wine:  109.244. 

Wisdom    (Logos):    36.39.80.102. 

103.120.143.154.155.187.227. 

231.237-239.247  (Pract.).  282. 
Wisdom  of  Sol.  (Book) :  292. 
Witichcraft  (Mantical):  43.44. 
Woman:  23.34.78.79.191. 
Word     (Proph.):     104.112.295 

(Logos). 
World-Culture:  291. 
World-Empire:  175.291. 
W7orld-Literature:  167. 
World-Religion    (Mission):    162. 

294. 
Wrath  (Personif.) :  263. 


Written  Law:  xxiii.  113. 214.251. 

260.275.291.295. 
Written  Literature:  82. 
Written  Past:  220. 

Z. 

Zadokites:  134. 

Zealous  God  (El  Kanna) :  35.195 . 
Zebaoth:  34.37-41.102.103. 
Zechariah:    48.93    (King).    122. 

138.155.159.160.169. 
Zephaniah:  46.70.75.95.182. 
Zidon:  108. 
Zophar  (Job):  144ff. 
Zunz:  xix. 


INDEX 


325 


147.150.161.181.182.185.193 
194.202.228.233-237.256-258. 
293. 
Thirteen      Benedictions      (The- 

philla):  256. 
This  World  (-Hereafter).  287. 
Thochaha  (Admonition):  19. 
Tholdoth  ha'  Ikkarim:  v.xxxix. 
xlii.48-50.70.94. 104. 116.129. 
141.155.183.186-188.210.217. 
226.256.259.267-280. 
Thosephtha  (Talm.):  70. 
Thought  (-Action):  241. 
Three  First  (Bened.):  256.257. 
Three  Friends  (Job):  261. 
Three  Last  (Ben.):  256.257. 
Three  Lines  (of  Thought):  ?19ff. 
Three  Passions:  282. 
Three  Shepherds:  94. 
Three  Theol.  Postulates  (Plato): 

232.283.284. 
Throne:  116. 
Thunder  (Sinai) :  47.187. 
"Torah":  xiv.xx.xvii.87. 216.217. 

222-225. 
Torah    (Pentateuch):    xiii-xviii. 
xxii-xxxii .  26. 7 1 .  79.87.222-229 
(Fin.  Red.).  238.251L257-263. 
273-277.292-295. 
Torah    from    Heaven    (Inspir.): 

217.258.259. 
Tower  (Bab.):  190.209. 
Tradition    (Oral    T.):    xxix.xxx. 
xxxiv.70.75.213     (Oral).     277 
(Two  T.).  285.299. 
Tree  of  Knowledge:  202.206.207. 
Tree  of  Life  (Immort.):  206.207. 
Trial  (Solutions):  177.243. 
Tribal  (Retrib.):  147. 
Trumpet  (Music):  79. 
Truth  (Hist.):  1. 
Twelve  (Astral.):  23. 
Twenty-four  (Ma'amadoth) :  259. 
Twin  Psalms:  235. 
Twins  (Gemini):  65.66. 
Two     Formulations         (Justice, 

Plato):  281. 
Two  Groups   (Graeco-J.,  Medi- 
eval Philos.):  293.299L 


Two  Schools  (Jer.-Ezek.):  137- 
217.181.186.189.204.209-212 
215.260. 

Two  Thoroth:  87.111.133. 

Two  Traditions:  277. 

Tyre:  108. 

U. 

'Ugab  (Music,  Sexual):  160. 
Unchastity  (Sexual) :  64. 
Unit  (Liter.):  100. 
Unity  (Monoth.):42  (Dynamic). 

142.187.256.295.297. 
Universaliism:     57.76.90.91  94 

112-114.134-137.162.166-169. 

172-185.199.250.252.269. 
Upward  (Immort.):  246.287. 
Urim  ve  Thumim  (Oracle):  70. 

75.267.274. 

V. 

Vanity  (Koh.):282. 
Vayyomer  (Sh'ma'):  256. 
Vehayah:  256. 
Vicarious  Atonement  (Servant)* 

127.177.178. 
Vice- Roy  (Mordechai):  175. 
Vine  (Noah) :  209. 
Virtues  (Card.  V.):  40.227.228. 
Vision  (Proph.):  159.279  (Dan.). 
Visiting  (Thirteen  A.):  105.126. 

194.211. 
Voice  (Proph.):  46.47.188. 

W. 

Wall  Painting  (Art):  130. 
Walls  of  Jerusalem:  73. 
War:  58.222  (Mace). 
Watchman  (Proph.):  123. 
Way  of  Life  (Immort.):  246. 
Ways  of  God:  28. 118.1  IV.  125. 

128.143.149.150.163.226.228. 

247.290. 
Weaving  (Art):  76. 
Wellhausen:  xix. 
Weltanschauung:  97.121.122. 
Western  School  (Philos.):  299. 
Western  Semitic:    25.36  (Asia). 
Wind  (Ruah):  152. 


326 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Wine:  109.244. 

Wisdom    (Logos):   36.39.80.102. 

103.120.143.154.155.187.227. 

231.237-239.247  (Pract.).  282. 
Wisdom  of  Sol.  (Book) :  292. 
Witichcraft  (Mantical):  43.44. 
Woman:  23.34.78.79.191. 
Word     (Proph.):     104.112.295 

(Logos). 
World-Culture:  291. 
World-Empire:  175.291. 
World-Litenature:  167. 
World-Religion    (Mission):    162. 

294. 
Wrath  (Personif.):263. 


Written  Law:  xxiii. 113.214.251 

260.275.291.295. 
Written  Literature:  82. 
Written  Past:  220. 

Z. 

Zadokites:  134. 

Zealous  God  (El  Kanna):  35.195. 
Zebaoth:  34.37-41.102.103. 
Zechariah:    48.93    (King).    122. 

138.155.159.160.169. 
Zephaniah:  46.70.75.95.182. 
Zidon:  108. 
Zophar(Job):  144ff. 
Zunz:  xix. 


Date  Due 

r 

• 

-, Miri 

<f> 

